TurboLasers VS. Phasers
Andrew Krywonizka
Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
>
> Turbolasers must logically he inferior to phasers; <any> kind of laser is,
> by definition, less powerful than a phaser. It's like trying to compare a
> really, really fast long distance runner (i.e. turbolaser) to a
> not-so-fast jet aircraft.
It's been pointed out MANY times already that SW turbolasers are PLASMA
based, and are not lasers! This only makes sense since the turbolasers
shoot bolts rather than beams (light beams I would think would travel
much faster than that).
This brings up an interesting point; plasmas are superheated, ionized
gases. Whenever a ship discharges its "laser" cannon, it would have to
expel a certain amount of matter to convert it into plasma. Where does
this matter come from? I see no ship diagrams outlining a "plasma fuel
bay" or something like that. Or is energy first converted into matter
and then heated into plasma?
Andrew K.
Celes
I thought it would be usefull to have a Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate that
goes to BOTH Star Wars and Star Trek groups! (I've seen to many SW vs. ST
debates that only went to ST's groups)
Which is better, TurboLasers, Phasers? We know that neither of them are
lasers. (TurboLasers are PLASMA, (NOT LIGHT) based.)
Both have adjustable power settings.
My guess is that TurboLasers are better because of their faster firing
times. I also think that Star Wars would win in a war with the Federation
because of Star Wars' greater number, more decicive leadership, and larger
ships.
--
-Celes
ce...@deskmedia.com
Any/all replies flaming spelling and/or grammer
will be ignored because it is an obvious sign that the
flamer has no real ideas.
The molecules of your body are the same molecules that burn inside the
stars themselves. We are starstuff. We are the universe, made manifest,
trying to figure itself out.
-Ambassador Delenn: Babylon 5
TurboLasers are not lasers.
TurboLasers are plasma based.
Star Trek fans who make debates are cowards because they only sent it to
other Star Trek groups.
Star Wars ships travel faster than light.
Star Wars ships have sheilds.
The Star Wars Empire has conquered the entire galaxy.
The Federation has charted under 20% of the galaxy.
Star Trek would lose in a Star Trek vs. Star Wars fight.
Stephen
Celes wrote:
> Which is better, TurboLasers, Phasers? We know that neither of them are
> lasers. (TurboLasers are PLASMA, (NOT LIGHT) based.)
> Both have adjustable power settings.
This is an old debate, and it boils down to if you believe Trek numbers said on
screen and in the tech manual. If The tech manual is correct then the E-D has a
phaser power of one GigaWatt, or 1000 million watts. In The Empire Strikes Back an
Imperial Star Destroyer plinks off asteroids, vaporizing them with one shot. It has
been estimated that it takes at the very least 4 Tera-Watts to do this, which makes
turbolasers 4000 times as powerful as the E-D's phasers. In "The Survivors" a 400
GW attack pokes a hole through the E-D's shields, at least according to Worf. a
4000 GW turbolaser would probably ignore the E-D's shields as a train would ignore
tissue paper. This makes sense as the SW ships have been crossing the galaxy for
thousands of years before SW, and the feds cannot cross thier galaxy at all.
If you ignore every bit of on-screen power quotes and the ST tech manual, then
ST has a chance. Most ST fans do just that, as nobody wants to admit defeat.
Brian Barjenbruch
Turbolasers must logically he inferior to phasers; <any> kind of laser is,
by definition, less powerful than a phaser. It's like trying to compare a
really, really fast long distance runner (i.e. turbolaser) to a
not-so-fast jet aircraft.
If you want to compare the weapons themselves, fine. But SW's use of the
term "turboLASER" (emphasis mine) limits their effectiveness. We've known
ever since ST:TNG's second season that lasers--ANY kind of lasers, no
matter how powerful--cannot even penetrate the Enterprise's navigational
deflectors, much less their normal shielding.
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday morning serials, chapters 1 through 15
Fly paper, penny loafers, Lucky Strike green
Flat tops, sock hops, Studebaker, Pepsi please
Ah, do you remember these?
-- The Statler Brothers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Z. Tels
Plasma: Ionized gas. That which current lasers reap their photons from.
Plasma-based weapons are at the very least similar in effect to lasers.
Phasers are beyond lasers.
End.
--
Ben Z. Tels
opti...@stack.nl
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle
forever."
-- Tsiolkovsky
Celes wrote in article <5osi6e$jiu$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
>I thought it would be usefull to have a Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate
that
>goes to BOTH Star Wars and Star Trek groups! (I've seen to many SW vs. ST
>debates that only went to ST's groups)
>
>Which is better, TurboLasers, Phasers? We know that neither of them are
>lasers. (TurboLasers are PLASMA, (NOT LIGHT) based.)
>Both have adjustable power settings.
>
>
Jeff
mgas...@infoave.net (Michael Gaskins) wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:33:52 -0700, Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
> Also, the thing
>with crossing the galaxy, in the first Star Wars movie, A New Hope,
>Han tells Luke that the Millineium Fulcon (I know thats spelled wrong)
>can make .5 past light speed, and it's supposed to be one of, if not
>THE fastest starship is the Star Wars universe, and it's only going
>one and one half times the speed of light! At that rate it would take
>years to make it between star systems, and centuries to cross the
>galaxy. Warp 9 is nearly 1500 times that speed of light! Clearly the
>Federation/Star Trek ships are faster.
That speed is non hyperspace speed. When any SW ship goes into
hyperspace they travel differently.
Michael Gaskins
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:33:52 -0700, Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> wrote:
>Celes wrote:
>
>> Which is better, TurboLasers, Phasers? We know that neither of them are
>> lasers. (TurboLasers are PLASMA, (NOT LIGHT) based.)
>> Both have adjustable power settings.
>
>This is an old debate, and it boils down to if you believe Trek numbers said on
>screen and in the tech manual. If The tech manual is correct then the E-D has a
>phaser power of one GigaWatt, or 1000 million watts. In The Empire Strikes Back an
>Imperial Star Destroyer plinks off asteroids, vaporizing them with one shot. It has
>been estimated that it takes at the very least 4 Tera-Watts to do this, which makes
>turbolasers 4000 times as powerful as the E-D's phasers. In "The Survivors" a 400
>GW attack pokes a hole through the E-D's shields, at least according to Worf. a
>4000 GW turbolaser would probably ignore the E-D's shields as a train would ignore
>tissue paper. This makes sense as the SW ships have been crossing the galaxy for
>thousands of years before SW, and the feds cannot cross thier galaxy at all.
>
> If you ignore every bit of on-screen power quotes and the ST tech manual, then
>ST has a chance. Most ST fans do just that, as nobody wants to admit defeat.
But on an Episode of DS9, the one where Dukat captured the Bird of
Prey, Dukat's phasers took a few seconds to vaporize an asteriod, and
the crew was sadly dissapointed. In other words, the phasers on that
ship were VERY weak (they hit the BOP with their shields down and
didn't do any damage). So, assuming that the phasers on other ships
are more powerful (the Enterprise-D for example), then their phasers
could also be able to instantly vaporize an asteroid. Also, the thing
Alfonso Ramirez
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Jeff wrote:
> That speed is non hyperspace speed. When any SW ship goes into
> hyperspace they travel differently.
>
>
Right, in hyperspace you can't measure the speed of anything
Alfonso Ramirez.
by
I also think SDs could at least defend themselves against the Borg. They
have ion cannons which would affect even the Borg, and each turbolaser
could be set to fire at a different frequency.
Celes <ce...@deskmedia.com> wrote in article
<5osi6e$jiu$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
> I thought it would be usefull to have a Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate
that
> goes to BOTH Star Wars and Star Trek groups! (I've seen to many SW vs. ST
> debates that only went to ST's groups)
>
> Which is better, TurboLasers, Phasers? We know that neither of them are
> lasers. (TurboLasers are PLASMA, (NOT LIGHT) based.)
> Both have adjustable power settings.
>
>
> My guess is that TurboLasers are better because of their faster firing
> times. I also think that Star Wars would win in a war with the
Federation
> because of Star Wars' greater number, more decicive leadership, and
larger
> ships.
> --
> -Celes
> ce...@deskmedia.com
>
> Any/all replies flaming spelling and/or grammer
> will be ignored because it is an obvious sign that the
> flamer has no real ideas.
>
> The molecules of your body are the same molecules that burn inside the
> stars themselves. We are starstuff. We are the universe, made manifest,
> trying to figure itself out.
> -Ambassador Delenn: Babylon 5
>
> TurboLasers are not lasers.
> TurboLasers are plasma based.
> Star Trek fans who make debates are cowards because they only sent it to
> other Star Trek groups.
> Star Wars ships travel faster than light.
> Star Wars ships have sheilds.
> The Star Wars Empire has conquered the entire galaxy.
> The Federation has charted under 20% of the galaxy.
> Star Trek would lose in a Star Trek vs. Star Wars fight.
>
>
>
Ben Z. Tels
Ion bombs would work... Once.
Lasers at different frequencies are still light. Doesn't work at all.
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle
forever."
-- Tsiolkovsky
by wrote in article <01bc82c2$727ea520$5fa960ce@default>...
Martin "Shwartz" Styk
Alfonso Ramirez <al53...@campus.cdj.itesm.mx> wrote in article
<Pine.HPP.3.91.970626...@campus.cdj.itesm.mx>...
> > That speed is non hyperspace speed. When any SW ship goes into
> > hyperspace they travel differently.
> >
> >
> Right, in hyperspace you can't measure the speed of anything
If you can't measure the speed, then how do you know when to stop?
Nick Darlington
Martin "Shwartz" Styk <st...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<01bc834d$a9ee04c0$0100007f@default>...
By measuring the distance (ie, jump points, co-ordinates.. that kind of
thing).
You then enter hyperspace, and then come out again at your destination
(which you know before you enter.. at least, for your health, you should do
;) ).
Anyway, that's what I would make of it.. can't say I can provide any facts
about it though ;)
Nick
ZyberGoat
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BC8307.266E3DE0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
GET THIS CRAP OFF THE XvT NEWSGROUP!!!! JUST B/C THIS NEWSGROUP HAS
"starwars" IN ITS NAME DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE WISH TO LISTEN TO THIS CRAP!
TAKE IT TO THE NEWSGROUPS WHO CARE!!!!!!!
------=_NextPart_000_01BC8307.266E3DE0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial">GET THIS CRAP OFF THE XvT NEWSGROUP!!!! =
JUST B/C THIS NEWSGROUP HAS "starwars" IN ITS NAME DOES NOT =
MEAN THAT WE WISH TO LISTEN TO THIS CRAP! TAKE IT TO THE NEWSGROUPS WHO =
CARE!!!!!!!<br><br><br><br>Celes <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>ce...@deskmedia.com</u><font color=3D"#000000">> =
wrote in article <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>5osi6e$jiu$1...@shadow.skypoint.net</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">>...<br>> I thought it would be usefull to have =
a Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate that<br>> goes to BOTH Star Wars and =
Star Trek groups! (I've seen to many SW vs. ST<br>> debates that only =
went to ST's groups)<br>> <br>> Which is better, TurboLasers, =
Phasers? We know that neither of them are<br>> lasers. =
(TurboLasers are PLASMA, (NOT LIGHT) based.)<br>> Both have =
adjustable power settings.<br>> <br>> <br>> My guess is that =
TurboLasers are better because of their faster firing<br>> times. =
I also think that Star Wars would win in a war with the =
Federation<br>> because of Star Wars' greater number, more decicive =
leadership, and larger<br>> ships.<br>> --<br>> -Celes<br>> =
<font color=3D"#0000FF"><u>ce...@deskmedia.com</u><font =
color=3D"#000000"><br>> <br>> Any/all replies flaming spelling =
and/or grammer<br>> will be ignored because it is an obvious sign =
that the<br>> flamer has no real ideas.<br>> <br>> The =
molecules of your body are the same molecules that burn inside =
the<br>> stars themselves. We are starstuff. We are the =
universe, made manifest,<br>> trying to figure itself out.<br>> =
-Ambassador Delenn: Babylon 5<br>> <br>> TurboLasers are not =
lasers. <br>> TurboLasers are plasma based. <br>> Star Trek fans =
who make debates are cowards because they only sent it to<br>> other =
Star Trek groups.<br>> Star Wars ships travel faster than =
light.<br>> Star Wars ships have sheilds.<br>> The Star Wars =
Empire has conquered the entire galaxy.<br>> The Federation has =
charted under 20% of the galaxy.<br>> Star Trek would lose in a Star =
Trek vs. Star Wars fight. <br>> <br>> <br>> </p>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC8307.266E3DE0--
Chris Trimmer
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:33:52 -0700, Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> wrote:
>Celes wrote:
>This is an old debate, and it boils down to if you believe Trek numbers said on
>screen and in the tech manual. If The tech manual is correct then the E-D has a
>phaser power of one GigaWatt, or 1000 million watts. In The Empire Strikes Back an
>Imperial Star Destroyer plinks off asteroids, vaporizing them with one shot. It has
>been estimated that it takes at the very least 4 Tera-Watts to do this, which makes
>turbolasers 4000 times as powerful as the E-D's phasers. In "The Survivors" a 400
>GW attack pokes a hole through the E-D's shields, at least according to Worf. a
>4000 GW turbolaser would probably ignore the E-D's shields as a train would ignore
>tissue paper. This makes sense as the SW ships have been crossing the galaxy for
>thousands of years before SW, and the feds cannot cross thier galaxy at all.
>
> If you ignore every bit of on-screen power quotes and the ST tech manual, then
>ST has a chance. Most ST fans do just that, as nobody wants to admit defeat.
Not to mention that a Star Destroyer carries 40 Turbolasers compared
to maybe 8 phaser banks.
Andrew
actualy, there is a hyperspace speed unit. Most capital ships travel at
2x or 3x. The falcon travels at .5x
Andrew
common misconception,
Tourbolasers are NOT lasers. Blasters are sorta lasers, but
Trourbolasers are NOT.
Plus, there are always Ion cannons, plus Mag Pulse trorpedoes which
would cripple and destroy an entire ST fleet with a single wave of
y-wings.
C D Edmondson
Andrew <and...@gamesnet.net> wrote:
>actualy, there is a hyperspace speed unit. Most capital ships travel at
>2x or 3x. The falcon travels at .5x
There is a very good web site that dicusses hyperspace, the ships do
around 1,200,000 c whic I think is a tab more then Warp 9.
>Nick Darlington wrote:
>> Martin "Shwartz" Styk <st...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
>> <01bc834d$a9ee04c0$0100007f@default>...
>> > Alfonso Ramirez <al53...@campus.cdj.itesm.mx> wrote in article
>> > <Pine.HPP.3.91.970626...@campus.cdj.itesm.mx>...
>> > > > That speed is non hyperspace speed. When any SW ship goes into
>> > > > hyperspace they travel differently.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > Right, in hyperspace you can't measure the speed of anything
>> >
>> > If you can't measure the speed, then how do you know when to stop?
>>
>> By measuring the distance (ie, jump points, co-ordinates.. that kind
>> of
>> thing).
>>
>> You then enter hyperspace, and then come out again at your destination
>>
>> (which you know before you enter.. at least, for your health, you
>> should do
>> ;) ).
>>
>> Anyway, that's what I would make of it.. can't say I can provide any
>> facts
>> about it though ;)
>>
>> Nick
Christopher
=========================
http://www.ecom.u-net.com
============================
"The hand you cannot bite, kiss it"
Francis Chow
> Which is better, TurboLasers, Phasers? We know that neither of them are
> lasers. (TurboLasers are PLASMA, (NOT LIGHT) based.)
> Both have adjustable power settings.
True, but where does it say turbolasers are plasma-based? Sure, current
lasers use plasma to generate the beam, but it's a laser nonetheless. This
is what your argument boils down to.
> My guess is that TurboLasers are better because of their faster firing
> times. I also think that Star Wars would win in a war with the
Federation
Faster firing doesn't mean you win. Try this comparason. Guy has a hit
rate of five punches/second (hypothetically speaking) but at a maxiumum
force of 10 Newtons overall. Another guy has a hit rate of three
punches/second, but at a maximum force of 30 Newtons overall. Doesn't take
a degree in physics that the second guy could probably take out the first
one in a matter of punches. Then again, they'd both have to be in a
position for the optimal number of punches.
> because of Star Wars' greater number, more decicive leadership, and
larger
> ships.
Larger isn't always better. More numbers isn't always going to win. SW
and ST are just as indecisive. It's just that ST is more thoughtful of the
outcome of their actions in peace time. In war, they'll stand their
ground. Watch DS "Call to Arms" to see this in action. SW is more shoot
first, ask later to any Imperial simply because they're at war.
> TurboLasers are not lasers.
> TurboLasers are plasma based.
Why use the laser designation? Why not Turboplasma?
> Star Trek fans who make debates are cowards because they only sent it to
> other Star Trek groups.
Same for SW guys who do this.
> Star Wars ships travel faster than light.
Not yet substantiated, other than the .5-past-lightspeed-as-a-class-rating
talk.
> Star Wars ships have sheilds.
So does ST.
> The Star Wars Empire has conquered the entire galaxy.
> The Federation has charted under 20% of the galaxy.
Reality check, SW is in a galaxy far, far away. ST is in the Milky Way.
Major location and galaxy size difference.
> Star Trek would lose in a Star Trek vs. Star Wars fight.
Completely unsubstantiated. It'll depend mostly on who's writing the
story, and more exact details of the capabilities of both sides.
Then again, this is jsut your ego talking rather than facts. I don't take
it personally.
--
Address altered to avoid spam.
It's was bad enough 90% of my University e-mail was regarding a
money-making scheme, a new website, or God.
Since this is not my account, the address will be revealed only at the
owner's discretion, spammers not included.
*******************************************************************
* What Shakespeare really said: "Kill all the Spammers!" *
*******************************************************************
Francis Chow
> I also think SDs could at least defend themselves against the Borg. They
We've seen a Borg ship vaporize ST ships pretty quick. The best SW could
hope for is quick death before entring firing range. Not a fact, merely my
opinion.
> have ion cannons which would affect even the Borg, and each turbolaser
Not likely.
> could be set to fire at a different frequency.
ST's tried this before, but it works only for a short while before the Borg
completely adapt.
Celbhlokw
Andrew wrote:
>
> common misconception,
> Tourbolasers are NOT lasers. Blasters are sorta lasers, but
> Trourbolasers are NOT.
> Plus, there are always Ion cannons, plus Mag Pulse trorpedoes which
> would cripple and destroy an entire ST fleet with a single wave of
> y-wings.
>
> Ben Z. Tels wrote:
>
> > Ion bombs would work... Once.
> > Lasers at different frequencies are still light. Doesn't work at all.
> > --
> > Ben Z. Tels
> > opti...@stack.nl
> >
> > "The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the
> > cradle
> > forever."
> > -- Tsiolkovsky
> > by wrote in article <01bc82c2$727ea520$5fa960ce@default>...
> > They
> > turbolaser
Star Trek episode they mentioned that lasers would do nothing against
their shields...so you think the Borg are weaker? nahh..
--
Celbhlokw
He who laughs last, thinks slowest...
Ben Z. Tels
Forty times nothing is still nothing.
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle
forever."
-- Tsiolkovsky
Chris Trimmer wrote in article <33b4a151...@news.bright.net>...
Andrew
MAG Pulse torpedoes are NOT radiation based.
Francis Chow wrote:
> > common misconception,
> > Tourbolasers are NOT lasers. Blasters are sorta lasers, but
> > Trourbolasers are NOT.
>
> Been there, done that.
>
> > Plus, there are always Ion cannons, plus Mag Pulse trorpedoes which
> > would cripple and destroy an entire ST fleet with a single wave of
> > y-wings.
>
> These weapons are radiation based, and ST sheilds have the ability to
> be
> tuned to reflect radiation, so they're bouncing marbles off a concrete
>
> sidewalk at best using these things.
Andrew
so a phaser is a laser.
Ben Z. Tels wrote:
> Assuming truth in the equation
>
> trourbolaser = tourbolaser = turbolaser
>
> I counter with the following:
>
> Turbolasers are plasmabased (ask Celes).
> Plasma-based weapons are weapons that work on basis of ionized gas, or
>
> plasma.
> To make a directed-energy weapon out of plasma and a box, you have to
> induce the plasma to emit photons.
> To emit photons is to emit light.
> A weapon that uses a beam of light is commonly known as a LASER.
> --
> Ben Z. Tels
> opti...@stack.nl
>
> "The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the
> cradle
> forever."
> -- Tsiolkovsky
> Andrew wrote in article <33B49912...@gamesnet.net>...
> >common misconception,
> >Tourbolasers are NOT lasers. Blasters are sorta lasers, but
> >Trourbolasers are NOT.
Spike
Who Cares about speed, a Galaxy Class Shop could easily over power a Star
Destroyer with Phasers, Run Circles around them with Impulse (Star
Distroyers have Thrusters...) and pound on them with Torpedoes.
As for Death Star - remember Genesis? :)
Spike
In article <33b4709e...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, no...@none.com
says...
> mgas...@infoave.net (Michael Gaskins) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:33:52 -0700, Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Also, the thing
> >with crossing the galaxy, in the first Star Wars movie, A New Hope,
> >Han tells Luke that the Millineium Fulcon (I know thats spelled wrong)
> >can make .5 past light speed, and it's supposed to be one of, if not
> >THE fastest starship is the Star Wars universe, and it's only going
> >one and one half times the speed of light! At that rate it would take
> >years to make it between star systems, and centuries to cross the
> >galaxy. Warp 9 is nearly 1500 times that speed of light! Clearly the
> >Federation/Star Trek ships are faster.
>
Beezel
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:07:12 -0000, "Celes" <ce...@deskmedia.com>
wrote:
If you want to continue the debate than continue to ADD.
>I just want to add this to the debate. I also posted this as "The Falcon's
>Shields"
>If this the above info is correct (and numbers have a tendency to vary from
>post to post) than the diffrence is even more signicicant then what I wrote
>below, but I also point out some other things so it may be worth reading if
>only (for ST people) to find errors (I'm not infallible) or (for SW people)
>to find new info to rebuke the *stupid* ST claims (such as shields won't be
>damaged by lasers, or SW ships don't travel faster than light.)
>
>One last thing I didn't put in the "The Falcon's Shields" post:
>Even (in the super unlikly) event that lasers (assuming SW weapons are
>lasers) can't actually penitrate the shields, the shear output of the terra
>or giga what weapons would create enought heat to kill everyone onboard.
>(Remember ST people, you may have metaphasic shields, but some things
>(lasers and lightning for example) are hotter than the sun.
Yes terifying. Jet planes get hit by lightning all the time and
sustaine ownly myner damedge. Heat dose not neseserely = destruction
Whats wers is that you don't even understand the WYs of metiphazic
superyoritey. Energy is harmles at aney intensitey if you avoid it all
together.
Lazers wer abandoned in ST because The hole prinsibel of Phazers
was preferabel. The RNE dismantels mater at the subatomic level it
dosn't just bake mater into submition. It alows materels own potenchel
energy to work against it.
>And in undetectible hyperspace, the Empire could move in. blow up a fed
>planet, then continue on.
Who ses undetectabel? maybe for the denisins of SW. ST sensers are
not knone for beaing blined to spashel or temprel diferenses.
>Now for what I posted in "The Falcon's Shields":
>
>This will (probably) be my last post in the ST vs. SW debate, (at least
>until the new trilogy comes out). So I wanted to sum up a few things and
>introduce one **NEW** piece of evidence.
>
>The SW side of the debate has always suffered from two things... That
>TurboLasers (at first glance) seem to be inferior to Trek Phasers, and that
>Trek people fail to realize that lasers come in different strengths.
>Apparently in one episode Picard said something to the effect of "Their
>lasers won't even damage our navigational shields."
>Our CD-lasers can't cut things... neither can laser sights on gun scopes,
>but the ones used in the (real) Star Wars and SDI defense programs can. Do
>you really think that that primitive culture Picard was talking about could
>blow up a planet? Lasers can be extremely powerful.
>According to the book “The Next Ten Thousand Years,” a laser with enough
>power could cause a star to supernova.
Most ST fans refraine from using novels as exampels of *fact*
If a hundred star destroyers pac planet destroying power in the
movies eyes, than so be it. Quite a co insedens that ST has more than
one exampel of simeler power.
Another thing. dose the Deth Star use a gigantic Lazer? Luces
probibly would prefer to consider it something new.
>There is no way the Enterprise’s shields could stop that, so it’s
>reasonable to assume that some lasers of even less power can’t be stopped
>by the Enterprise’s shields. So what Picard meant was, “This primitive
>culture's lasers aren't very powerful so they can’t go through our shields,
>just like the Enterprise-A’s phasers wouldn’t go through our shields.” SW
>TurboLasers (being far more advanced than the culture Picard was talking
>about) could damage any Fed ship.
Maybe... Or maybe Lazers are worthles against ST shealds no mater
what because they are phisicly not up to it. and Im not talking about
strength ither.
OR Maybe Pacard WAS talking about SWs calture. A society that
hasn't developed tranzporters is pritey primetiv as far as ST is
concerned.
> Next problem is which is more powerful,
>Phasers or TurboLasers?
>Before I get to that...
>
>I was reading Stephen Hawking’s "A Brief History of Time" and I found
>something interesting. In chapter 7 (page 108 in my book) he said (direct
>quote except for what's in parentheses, in the book, the words in * are
>italicized) "(Black holes) are *white hot* and are emitting energy at a
>rate of about ten thousand megawatts (10 gigawatts)."
>This got me thinking about how strong the Millennium Falcons Shields must
>be. Let me elaborate.
>
>In Star Wars: A New Hope, Han talks about making the Kessel run in under a
>certain number of parsecs. Kessel is very close to a number of black
>holes, so Han was saying that he cut it close to them. In one book (I
>don't remember which one) he said something to the effect of "We were so
>close to the black holes that it almost ripped the bottom off of our
>ships." Implying that he was very near the Event Horizon of the Black
>Holes.
When your talking parsecs your talking 3.2(something) light
years. Thats a pritey big margon of erore. And 10 gigawats can be
spred pritey thin after a certin nomber of kilomiters.
>In Kevin J. Anderson's Jedi Academy Trilogy, the rebels pilot a small
>Imperial shuttle in a narrow passage through the black holes near Kessel.
>They encounter a Imperial fleet that has been in the middle of the black
>holes for DECADES!
If you want to talk books than read Federaition the E1701 sat
inside a Blak Hole and exscaped unscathed with nothing more than some
sensibel math on the part of Mr.spok and comander Data.
>The constant bombardment on these Star Destroyers must be incredible. That
>they could Take 10 gigawatt energy for so long implies that either 1) They
>have incredible shields 2) 10 Gigawatt energy isn't enough to damage
>whatever metal their hull is made of, 3) All of the above.
Or, 4 read my above comenterey and consider this a mute point.
>Most quotes I've heard about the Enterprise's phasers range of megawatts.
>The best that the Federation Flagship can dish out, a Star Destroyer could
>take fro decades without ANY significant damage. A battle between the
>Federation and a Super Star Destroyer (or even a smaller Star Destroyer)
>would be like the Best of Both Worlds all over again.
Are you shure? How did the comand ship meat its end in ROJD?
>Star Wars ships DO have shields (see final fight in ROJT for proof). A ST
>person may bring up the point that, “SW shields must be inferior because
>the Falcon landed on a SD (Star Destroyer).” Well, friend, remember in the
>Alternate Universe on DS9 where the Defiant flew extremely close to the
>Klingon battleship. It must have been inside the shields because when it
>fired, it’s blast were not stopped by anything.
>If a SD can easily take 10 gigawatt damage from close range, Star Wars
>weapons must be *much* greater than 10 gigawatts. Defense usually evolves
>with offense, so the Federations shields must be in the megawatt rage
>(because they are damaged by weapons in the megawatt rage.)
>
>Given the *huge* number of species in SW, they must have an incredibly huge
>galaxy.
>It would take thousands of ships to patrol that (I’ve hear of 40-50,000)
>compared to ST’s few hundred.
>If I may quote someone else’s numbers...
>
>>consisted of 4 super star destroyers, 2 death stars (including the
>>Tarkin),9000 (!) type 1 ISDs, and 6000 type 2 ISDs, there were about
>>8000+ VSDs, and countless other ships (strike criusers, nebulon-bs,
>>nova class destroyers, dreadnoughts...) I dont know about planetary
>>shielding or starfleet marines, but an Isd carries a bout 10000
>>Stormtroopers and a coupe of At-Ats.
>
>That's 10,000 per ship verses the 5,000 on the E-D! Any (probably
>megawatt) Federation ground based defenses would be useless against the
>shields of the landing troops. And 9000 ISD’s versus a few hundred Fed
>starships would be a one sided war.
>
>SW hyperdrive is also much better than ST. Along with being completely
>undetectable (and SW sensors are similar to ST sensors <see below>)
>hyperdrive is also much faster. You saw in ESB how the rebels went *far*
>outside the galaxy. I’ve heard that the Falcon can cross the galaxy in
>about 2 days, compared to the Federations 70+ years.
>
>Star Wars: Heir to the Empire gave a scanning range similar to the
>Federations (but I don’t recall what it was).
>
>The Empire has conquered the entire galaxy and therefore has a greater
>Industrial base to call upon to make ships (compared to the Federations
>77-150 planets <I’ve heard different numbers for the # of planets in the
>Federation, but anyway it is definitely less than the Empire>).
>
>Maybe some ST fan will call upon Q or the Borg or some system killing
>monster to aid them and prove some kind of point. Well it won’t work. Q
>has never helped the Federation (in battle) why would he help them now
>(it’s not like he’s limited to this galaxy, he probably visits SW galaxy a
>lot). The Borg wouldn’t side (are they helping the Fed against the
>Dominion?) As for the on time Star/Planet/System killers. Well SW has
>them too. The Death Star for one, then there’s the Eye of Palpatine <SP?>,
>and the ever fun Suncrusher.
>
>Is Geordi or Scotty or someone going to technobabble a solution? By saying
>that your only admitting that ST can win by it’s tech alone.
>
>Perhaps you would like to use “Why doesn’t SW use replicators or
>transporters.” Well, for that matter, “Why didn’t the Fed invent Photon
>torpedoes and clocking tech before the Romulans? Why doesn’t the Fed use
>the Borg’s adaptive shield? Why does ST or SW use B5’s greater organic
>hulls?
>The answer is that occasionally species follow different (technological)
>evolutionary paths.
>
>For me the debate is over. I may read a few more posts and point out some
>obvious errors (by either side). I like B5 and ST and SW, but the debate
>is over (for me) SW has 1) Has FAR FAR greater weapons power 2) Greater
>Shields 3) has much faster drives 4) Has a greater industrial base.
>
>All the ST people can do is point out some small error that won’t really
>change anything. Maybe, just maybe, it says that the Federation uses 20
>gigawatt weapons. This would put it at (or even still below) the Empire’s
>level, so the Empires number should still will. You can’t (with a straight
>face) take away all these advantages.
I certinly can't keap a strait face after reading your monolog. You
SW fans (i am one myself, but not so mutch that i will defend it in
debates like this) sertinly like to use the vast raw power and
legisticel atcheavments of the empier to argue your point. But wasn't
Gorges point about power and the abilitey to grab victorey just the
oposet. The pinicel of imperyel tecknalegey... Destroyed by One proton
torpedo...
"Do not have to mutch faith in this technologicel teror you have
cryaited..."
Star Trek is not about beaing strong, it's about beaing smart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the inconvenence of reading through my posts!
However...
I will not respond to >un-frendly< comments regarding my
spelling.Dislexia does NOT equal stupidity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Kennedy
In article <brianbarge-28...@116.bridgeton-001.mo.dial-
access.att.net>, Brian Barjenbruch <brian...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> Tourbolasers are NOT lasers.
>
>Then they shouldn't CALL them lasers. The use of the word 'laser'
>anywhere in the term, by definition limits the effectiveness of the
>device. If this is a problem for the scriptwriters or something, that's
>their own damn problem.
>
> Brian
(snip)
This whole "turbolasers are not lasers" thing is nonsense. Turbolasers
are a form of laser, modified in some way - hence the added 'turbo'.
However, they are STILL LASERS.
A good analogy is somebody claiming that crossbows are not the same as
bow and arrows. Well, no they are not. They're a more advanced,
accurate, and easier to use form of bow. But they still don't do you any
good if you're fighting a Main Battle Tank.
Once and for all : Lasers can NOT even penetrate a starships
navigational shields, let alone its main shields. I don't care how many
words you put before or after the word laser - the presence of that word
alone makes them about as effective as a pea-shooter.
Also, since a SW ships shields can be penetrated by a laser, they are
presumably far more susceptible to phaser energy. And since physical
objects such as fighters can penetrate them easily, then a photon
torpedo could do the same.
So if a ST ship met a fleet of a hundred star destroyers, it would
simply sit there letting them fire until their weapons became exhausted.
They it would blow them away, one by one, until the remainder
surrendered. Then it would put their crews into a Federation penal
settlement, and they would be taught to become useful, productive
members of society.
End of story.
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
In article <33B59122...@gamesnet.net>, Andrew
<and...@gamesnet.net> writes
>so a phaser is a laser.
No. A phaser is a particle beam weapon which at low energy disrupts the
neural system of the target (if it has one). At higher energies thermal
effects are induced, and at high settings it breaks down the strong
nuclear force, causing matter to disassociate. Note that a laser can
only cause thermal effects, and only that in targets which absorb their
particular frequency rather than being transparent/reflective to it.
>Ben Z. Tels wrote:
>
>> Assuming truth in the equation
>>
>> trourbolaser = tourbolaser = turbolaser
>>
>> I counter with the following:
>>
>> Turbolasers are plasmabased (ask Celes).
>> Plasma-based weapons are weapons that work on basis of ionized gas, or
>>
>> plasma.
>> To make a directed-energy weapon out of plasma and a box, you have to
>> induce the plasma to emit photons.
>> To emit photons is to emit light.
>> A weapon that uses a beam of light is commonly known as a LASER.
>> --
>> Ben Z. Tels
>> opti...@stack.nl
(snip)
--
Graham Kennedy
Celes
It says below that a star destroyer has 4 terrawatt weapons. The species
847? (from the Voyager cliffhanger) seem to be copies of the Shawdows from
B5. It has been stated that B5 ships use terrawatt weapons, so it's
reasonable that Species 847? also uses terrawatt weapons (being they have
everything else that the shawdows have, telepathy, non-humaniod looks,
organic ships, ability to take over people, ability to destroy planets,
ect. ect.) We've seen how easily a few ships from Species 847? took apart
so many Borg ships, so it's resonable to assume that Star Destroyers would
have an equally easy time with Borg or Federation ships.
As for "the Borg would assimilate the Death Star" argument, they can't.
Period. The Empire still uses a lot of projectile weapons similar to
modren guns. We've seen that modren guns can kill borg (First Contact).
We know that SW ships can outrun Fed ships (SW ships can cross the galaxy
in only a few days) SW has many more ships (it must take millions of ships
to patrol a galaxy, or atleast several tousand) SW has greater industrial
might (with the thousands of more planets.)
Star Trek people can scream "Lasers can such and such" or they may make up
lies like "SW ships can't travel faster than light" or "SW ships don't have
shields"
but they know they're wrong.
Well B5 is on in a few minutes, so I don't have time to write anymore.
>>This is an old debate, and it boils down to if you believe Trek numbers
said on
>>screen and in the tech manual. If The tech manual is correct then the
E-D has a
>>phaser power of one GigaWatt, or 1000 million watts. In The Empire
Strikes Back an
>>Imperial Star Destroyer plinks off asteroids, vaporizing them with one
shot. It has
>>been estimated that it takes at the very least 4 Tera-Watts to do this,
which makes
>>turbolasers 4000 times as powerful as the E-D's phasers. In "The
Survivors" a 400
>>GW attack pokes a hole through the E-D's shields, at least according to
Worf. a
>>4000 GW turbolaser would probably ignore the E-D's shields as a train
would ignore
>>tissue paper. This makes sense as the SW ships have been crossing the
galaxy for
>>thousands of years before SW, and the feds cannot cross thier galaxy at
all.
>>
>> If you ignore every bit of on-screen power quotes and the ST tech
manual, then
>>ST has a chance. Most ST fans do just that, as nobody wants to admit
defeat.
>
>
>Not to mention that a Star Destroyer carries 40 Turbolasers compared
>to maybe 8 phaser banks.
Celes
Brian Barjenbruch wrote in article ...
>> Tourbolasers are NOT lasers.
>
>Then they shouldn't CALL them lasers. The use of the word 'laser'
>anywhere in the term, by definition limits the effectiveness of the
>device. If this is a problem for the scriptwriters or something, that's
>their own damn problem.
They don't call them lasers, they call them TURBOLASERS. Phaser sounds a
lot more like laser than turbolaser sounds like laser, but you don't see SW
people assuming that phasers are lasers.
Brian Barjenbruch
> We know that SW ships can outrun Fed ships (SW ships can cross the galaxy
> in only a few days) SW has many more ships (it must take millions of ships
> might (with the thousands of more planets.)
SW doesn't take place in the same galaxy as Trek does. So any such
comparisons are automatically meaningless.
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday morning serials, chapters 1 through 15
Fly paper, penny loafers, Lucky Strike green
Flat tops, sock hops, Studebaker, Pepsi please
Ah, do you remember these?
-- The Statler Brothers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Chapin (Assassin)
OK, my second post :-)
Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
> In article <brianbarge-28...@116.bridgeton-001.mo.dial-
> access.att.net>, Brian Barjenbruch <brian...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >
> >Then they shouldn't CALL them lasers. The use of the word 'laser'
> >anywhere in the term, by definition limits the effectiveness of the
> >device. If this is a problem for the scriptwriters or something, that's
> >their own damn problem.
> >
> (snip)
>
> This whole "turbolasers are not lasers" thing is nonsense. Turbolasers
> are a form of laser, modified in some way - hence the added 'turbo'.
> However, they are STILL LASERS.
> A good analogy is somebody claiming that crossbows are not the same as
> bow and arrows. Well, no they are not. They're a more advanced,
> accurate, and easier to use form of bow. But they still don't do you any
> good if you're fighting a Main Battle Tank.
Well, in that case, you must also take into that the fact that guns are
just advanced crossbows(ammo is minus the shaft, only the propulsion is
different, it's the same concept in every way), and tanks are powerful
guns. Thus Turbolasers can be much more powerful than regular lasers in
your train of thought (a tank is more powerful than a spear, the prequel
to the bow&arrow)
>
> Once and for all : Lasers can NOT even penetrate a starships
> navigational shields, let alone its main shields. I don't care how many
> words you put before or after the word laser - the presence of that word
> alone makes them about as effective as a pea-shooter.
Well, I'm not sure. a starships nav-shields may not be succeptible to
low-power lasers (hell, human skin is barely affected by some lasers we
have today), but if you put a ton of energy into the shot, well, I think
you're getting my drift. It all also goes back to the crossbow VS tank
bit. While a Crossbow may not put a dent in a tank, another tank's guns
sure can. They're basically the same, all I did was add power and a
different KE source (lead instead of wood)
>
> Also, since a SW ships shields can be penetrated by a laser, they are
> presumably far more susceptible to phaser energy. And since physical
> objects such as fighters can penetrate them easily, then a photon
> torpedo could do the same.
Not necessarily. There has never been an instance I know of where a
physical object penetrated SW shields (games refute that, and if yer
talking about that famous "the A-Wing went through the shields!" bit,
keep in mind the shields were destroyed on the SSD, and I quote "Sir,
we've lost the main deflector!", then the officer said to intensify FIRE
POWER, not shields.)
>
> So if a ST ship met a fleet of a hundred star destroyers, it would
> simply sit there letting them fire until their weapons became exhausted.
> They it would blow them away, one by one, until the remainder
> surrendered. Then it would put their crews into a Federation penal
> settlement, and they would be taught to become useful, productive
> members of society.
Tell me with a straight face that the super-LASER blast from the death
star wouldn't effect a Shuttlecraft/runabout in any way. It's a bigger
example, I give you that, but according to your theory, the Deathstar
laser blast wouldn't even go penetrate the runabouts shields. In that
light, I think turbolasers could effect ST shields :-) As for
"productive members of society", you must admit ST has it's
"unproductive members" that are under starfleet jurisdiction, and
starfleet isn't one to force a life upon others, except those in it's
military/government.
>
> End of story.
Not quite :-)
>
> --
> Graham Kennedy
--
That wondering spirit, from the begining of time:
--=============================================--
Colonel Jon "Assassin" Chapin
Wing Commander, BWS Charleston (MIA)
Proud member of the Wing Commander Aces Club
Homepage: http://www.intercom.net/user/chapin/
IRC nicks: Assassin Assasin, Asassin, others, whatever...
Owner and maintainer of the Union of Border Worlds Database, a.k.a.
AceNet Communications
--=============================================--
"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast"
-Arnold J Rimmer
B.S.c, S.S.c
--=============================================--
"Meddle not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy, and go well
with Ketchup, fries and a cola."
- Anonymous
--=============================================--
Gravity theorum: If a cat always lands on it's feet, and toast always
lands butter side down, if you put a slice of toast on a cat's back and
drop them, wouldn't they spin just above the ground?
--=============================================--
Old programmers never die - they just go to bits, lose their memory,
and cache in their chips.
Martin "Shwartz" Styk
Nick Darlington <ne...@nickd.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bc8341$bdc2bba0$767a...@nickd.demon.co.uk>...
> Martin "Shwartz" Styk <st...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <01bc834d$a9ee04c0$0100007f@default>...
> > Alfonso Ramirez <al53...@campus.cdj.itesm.mx> wrote in article
> > <Pine.HPP.3.91.970626...@campus.cdj.itesm.mx>...
> > > > hyperspace they travel differently.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > If you can't measure the speed, then how do you know when to stop?
>
> By measuring the distance (ie, jump points, co-ordinates.. that kind of
> thing).
Yeah, but if you can't meassure the speed then how can you meassure the
distance?
> You then enter hyperspace, and then come out again at your destination
> (which you know before you enter.. at least, for your health, you should
do
> ;) ).
Again, how do you know when is the exit point? You just guess?
Graham Kennedy
In article <5p4r6u$sm1$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>, Celes
<ce...@deskmedia.com> writes
>
>It says below that a star destroyer has 4 terrawatt weapons. The species
>847? (from the Voyager cliffhanger) seem to be copies of the Shawdows from
>B5. It has been stated that B5 ships use terrawatt weapons, so it's
>reasonable that Species 847? also uses terrawatt weapons (being they have
>everything else that the shawdows have, telepathy, non-humaniod looks,
>organic ships, ability to take over people, ability to destroy planets,
>ect. ect.) We've seen how easily a few ships from Species 847? took apart
>so many Borg ships, so it's resonable to assume that Star Destroyers would
>have an equally easy time with Borg or Federation ships.
This is absolute nonsense. You're assuming that ships from different
shows have similar power ratings becasue they LOOK the same? Rubbish!
>
>As for "the Borg would assimilate the Death Star" argument, they can't.
>Period. The Empire still uses a lot of projectile weapons similar to
>modren guns. We've seen that modren guns can kill borg (First Contact).
We've seen that projectile weapons can kill TWO Borg. After two or three
Borg are killed, the rest adapt. Same with any other weapon. That's the
whole problem with the Borg - no matter what you try, you just end up
making them stronger. In the end you become defenceless.
>We know that SW ships can outrun Fed ships (SW ships can cross the galaxy
>in only a few days) SW has many more ships (it must take millions of ships
>to patrol a galaxy, or atleast several tousand) SW has greater industrial
>might (with the thousands of more planets.)
>
We have no evidence whatsoever that the Empire occupies the whole
galaxy, and none that they can cross it in a few days. We know the
Millennium Falcon can go "point five beyond lightspeed", whatever that
is supposed to mean. I always assumed that SW and ST ships are about as
fast as each other, for whatever that's worth.
SW probably has 500 - 1000 ships, if the force gathered at Endor is any
indication. I'm assuming that that was a significant portion of the
fleet, perhaps 10% or so. But so what? It probably took thousands of
knights on horseback to patrol Europe in the middle ages, but you
wouldn't want to be on their side in a fight with 10 men with machine
guns. A technological edge in weapons can easily overcome numbers. Look
at the Gulf war - Allied weapons where maybe 15 years ahead of the Iraqi
weapons. ST weapons tech is well over a century ahead of SW tech.
A fight between the two would be no contest. Especially once the
Federation began using trilithium torpedoes to destroy SW star systems
and fleets.
--
Graham Kennedy
Ben Z. Tels
Celes wrote in article <5p4r6u$sm1$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
>It says below that a star destroyer has 4 terrawatt weapons. The species
>847? (from the Voyager cliffhanger) seem to be copies of the Shawdows
from
>B5. It has been stated that B5 ships use terrawatt weapons, so it's
>reasonable that Species 847? also uses terrawatt weapons (being they have
>everything else that the shawdows have, telepathy, non-humaniod looks,
>organic ships, ability to take over people, ability to destroy planets,
>ect. ect.) We've seen how easily a few ships from Species 847? took
apart
>so many Borg ships, so it's resonable to assume that Star Destroyers
would
>have an equally easy time with Borg or Federation ships.
How does the one imply the other? You've just taken on the task of
proving:
1 - That Babylon 5 technology is more advanced than Star Trek technology.
2 - That Star Wars tech is more advanced than B5 tech.
Before you do that, it is not reasonable to assume anything.
>As for "the Borg would assimilate the Death Star" argument, they can't.
>Period. The Empire still uses a lot of projectile weapons similar to
Why not?
>modren guns. We've seen that modren guns can kill borg (First Contact).
They can kill the Borg. Once, maybe twice. Until the Borg adapt make all
chemnically propelled weapons useless.
>We know that SW ships can outrun Fed ships (SW ships can cross the galaxy
>in only a few days) SW has many more ships (it must take millions of
ships
>to patrol a galaxy, or atleast several tousand) SW has greater industrial
>might (with the thousands of more planets.)
Which Galaxy, prey tell? For all we know, the SW galaxy could be one sector
across.
And how do you know about their speed.? Is there anything in the movies
that could not possibly just be a figure of speech? Is there any indication
that SW ships can go very far beyond the speed of light?
You are working on the basis of very loose assumptions, and not a single
hard fact to back any of it up.
Simon Juncal
Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
> In article <33B59122...@gamesnet.net>, Andrew
> <and...@gamesnet.net> writes
> >so a phaser is a laser.
>
> No. A phaser is a particle beam weapon which at low energy disrupts the
> neural system of the target (if it has one). At higher energies thermal
> effects are induced, and at high settings it breaks down the strong
> nuclear force, causing matter to disassociate. Note that a laser can
> only cause thermal effects, and only that in targets which absorb their
> particular frequency rather than being transparent/reflective to it.
So being that ST ships are at least somewhat vunerable to "particle beam
weapons" (prey tell WHAT KIND OF PARTICAL, perhaps um radiation?
ie. light!)
I find it somewhat odd that a ship thats Vulnerable to "particles" of
_any sort_ can travel at "warp" 9 (9x the speed of light or .9c?) in
normal space, without having every atom collided with 1) Hygrogen
"particles" 2) neutrino's 3) larger base metal dust and heavy metal
dust.
(in system) as well as micro meteor's.
Are you arguing that ST ships are invulnerable to ALL "particles" ???
(and thus totally invulnerable to ANYTHING!!!!)
also if ST shields are invulnerable to "lasers" (in other words light
of any intencity) then WHY IN THE HELL DO ___PHOTON___ (a particle of
light) torp's do damage to them????
we would seem to have a rather LARGE contradiction here, how can a
ship thats shields are vulnerable AT ALL to ANY particle travel at
absurd +realativistic speeds in non-hyper space?
why because ST writers wrote it that way.... making this whole
speudo-scientific arguement baseless and laughable.
--
(Remove the ^ from my address when replying)
____________________________________________
) Simon )
( Midzilla Music & sound (
) Mailto:s^jun...@erols.com )
( http://users.aol.com/sjuncal/theax.html (
)___________________________________________)
Nick Darlington
[Cut down cos this is starting to get messy]
Graham Kennedy <gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<3pN+pCAk...@adeadend.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <33B60...@shore.intercom.net>, "Jon Chapin (Assassin)"
> <cha...@shore.intercom.net> writes
> >OK, my second post :-)
> >Well, in that case, you must also take into that the fact that guns are
> >just advanced crossbows(ammo is minus the shaft, only the propulsion is
> >different, it's the same concept in every way), and tanks are powerful
> >guns. Thus Turbolasers can be much more powerful than regular lasers in
> >your train of thought (a tank is more powerful than a spear, the prequel
> >to the bow&arrow)
>
> operate on fundamentally different laws of physics, do damage in
> completely different ways.
Possibly, but the 'fundamental laws' are not that different, which is
transferal of energy, in a destructive state.
[...]
> >
> >Well, I'm not sure. a starships nav-shields may not be succeptible to
> >low-power lasers (hell, human skin is barely affected by some lasers we
> >have today), but if you put a ton of energy into the shot, well, I think
> >you're getting my drift. It all also goes back to the crossbow VS tank
> >bit. While a Crossbow may not put a dent in a tank, another tank's guns
> >sure can. They're basically the same, all I did was add power and a
> >different KE source (lead instead of wood)
>
> It's not a matter of energy. If the shields are a perfect reflector of
> laser light, for example, then it wouldn't matter how much energy you
> put into the laser - it would just reflect off harmlessley. However it's
> supposed to work, Picard did NOT say "lasers with that power rating"
> will not affect the ship, he specifically said that lasers as a whole
> would have no effect.
Well, Picard's comments cannot be taken too literally.. the ships have
shields at a certain 'strength' right? In which case, the lasers found
available in the 'Trek world most likely might not damage the ship and be
completely reflected - but who knows whether this is purely down to
'effective strength' of the shields and weapons? It would certainly be
naive to just simply say Picard: "Screw the Death Star, it can't touch us
anyhow" until it was tested otherwise...
[...]
> >Not necessarily. There has never been an instance I know of where a
> >physical object penetrated SW shields (games refute that, and if yer
> >talking about that famous "the A-Wing went through the shields!" bit,
> >keep in mind the shields were destroyed on the SSD, and I quote "Sir,
> >we've lost the main deflector!", then the officer said to intensify FIRE
> >POWER, not shields.)
>
> No, I'm talking about the numerous occasions when we see fighters flying
> very, very close to SW ships. Did the Death Star have shields? The
Yes the Death Star had shields (to my knowledge) at least when it was
orbiting Endor, because it was protected by the shield generators the
rebels shut down from that very same moon. (I hope strongly here that I've
not screwed up.. I don't try to claim to be an expert in either field, but
I thought these poster's comments were incorrect personally, however,
didn't a few Y-Wings bounce off of afore-mentioned shields before the
generator was shut down?).
> fighters had no trouble flying right down to the surface in Star Wars.
When the 'battle station was fully operational' - but knowingly prematurely
so by the imperials themselves.. see previous comment.
> Do Star Destroyers have shields? The Millennium Falcon actually landed
> on one in TESB!
Yes they have shields. The Falcon also has shields, and I'm fairly sure
that it is indicative in the films, though I couldn't give any references
to promise anything. Shields do not have to exist as pretty coloured
transparent bubble-type entities. When you wax your car, it gets shielded
from harmful sun rays, but it's a shield that cannot be 'bumped into' due
to it's proximity with the car surface. Probably a bad analogy, but I
don't see why shields have to be stereotypical and not simply act in a
fashion akin to TripleWax ;) They could indeed have both (or else, my
previous comments about the Death Star's shields are probably already
nullified ;) ).
> Do Super-Star destroyers have shields? The MF flew
> within a about fifty or sixty feet of the ships hull at the end of TESB.
> In battle sequences shots continually hit the actual hulls of the ships
> without meeting ANY barrier first - judging from the film evidence it
> doesn't even look like any of these ships even HAVE shields!
As above..
[...]
> >Tell me with a straight face that the super-LASER blast from the death
> >star wouldn't effect a Shuttlecraft/runabout in any way. It's a bigger
> >example, I give you that, but according to your theory, the Deathstar
> >laser blast wouldn't even go penetrate the runabouts shields. In that
> >light, I think turbolasers could effect ST shields :-) As for
> >"productive members of society", you must admit ST has it's
> >"unproductive members" that are under starfleet jurisdiction, and
> >starfleet isn't one to force a life upon others, except those in it's
> >military/government.
>
> Tell me with a straight face that the Death Star can even hit a
> Runabout. We don't know that that weapon is a super laser, that I know
> of. It's not mentioned in any film, and I don't count novels as canon.
> It certainly didn't LOOK like a laser - a laser wouldn't have that
> effect on a planet, no matter how powerful, and laser beams coming
> together don't generate another beam the way it was shown. I doubt that
> that was a laser.
[...]
Laser's can be channelled/concentrated, else laser itself is a
self-defeating terminology isn't it.. they can also be effected and
directed using prisms, etc. So I don't see the Death Star (considering it
is a fantasy technology to all extents, as are both realms in whole) as
being an impossiblity. Your previous paragraph to me seems to hold no real
content as such - but no offence meant.
Regards,
Nick
Ps. No attempt was meant to be made to indicate that what I am saying is
gospel or anything.. just my views on the ideas/things mentioned.
Nick Darlington
[snipped]
> We've seen that projectile weapons can kill TWO Borg. After two or three
> Borg are killed, the rest adapt. Same with any other weapon. That's the
> whole problem with the Borg - no matter what you try, you just end up
> making them stronger. In the end you become defenceless.
How do the Borg adapt to the vaccum of space? If the answer is not too
well (or sudden changes in atmosphere) then how would they cope to having
their planet of inhabitance nuked by the Death Star?
Just curious :) I'd like to see how planet-2 coped and adapted after
planet-1 bit the dust, literally.
Regards (from a non-expert on the subject, I hasten to add),
Nick
Nick Darlington
> Nick Darlington <ne...@nickd.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <01bc8341$bdc2bba0$767a...@nickd.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> > By measuring the distance (ie, jump points, co-ordinates.. that kind of
> > thing).
>
> Yeah, but if you can't meassure the speed then how can you meassure the
> distance?
>
> > You then enter hyperspace, and then come out again at your destination
> > (which you know before you enter.. at least, for your health, you
should
> do
> > ;) ).
>
> Again, how do you know when is the exit point? You just guess?
>
Well, I'm just guessing about this whole thing anyways ;) Basically, take
navigation at it's heart and forget speed/time for a moment. Just like
Vikings in their longboats.. do you really think they had a clue how long
it would take them to get from A - B, or, more importantly, know the speed
required? Half the time it's course corrections and stuff based on the
stars and current direction due to storm's anyway, so even if it does take
xx days usually to get from one place to another under this analogy, it's
neither constant, linear, or progressive, and therefore, not really speed
related.
You can plot a course without having to travel it at any particular fixed
speed, and from what I've seen from some sources (completely unrelated ones
however) is that hyperspace travel is not consistent with our current
time/distance equations anyway, and that you literally 'enter' hyperspace
as though it was something like water, and then when you exit back out of
hyperspace, you are at your destination (provided you travelled from A to B
correctly of course), but the manner in which it was undertaken permits
vast distances to be covered in significantly shorter periods.
Many SF genre has taken this approach, including the Space Marine Imperium
and associated info created by Games Workshop, and also Origin Software
throughout their Wing Commander series.
Sorry to drag in so much info that doesn't have solid roots from the source
I was meant to be explaining, but it's a principal more so than a technical
detail from a reference about a fictitious universe (or at least, how I had
accepted/understood it anyway).
Regards,
Nick
Nick Darlington
Ben Z. Tels <opti...@stack.nl> wrote in article
<5p69pl$52v$5...@news.IAEhv.nl>...
[snipped significantly]
> You are working on the basis of very loose assumptions, and not a single
> hard fact to back any of it up.
>
> Ben Z. Tels
> opti...@stack.nl
>
> "The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle
> forever."
> -- Tsiolkovsky
How can you compare 'assumption' and 'fact' in a fictitious environment?
All are 'assumption' since none of them are 'real'.
Not meaning to knock you directly for this, but I don't see that a 'my
proof is more real than your proof' scenario can exist in such a topic..
unless of course, you are Spock.. ;)
Nick
Cmdr. Teihl Armstree
Ben Z. Tels wrote:
>
> Nick Darlington wrote in article <01bc84dd$02b0a0a0$767a...@nickd.demon.co
> .uk>...
> >Well, Picard's comments cannot be taken too literally.. the ships have
> >shields at a certain 'strength' right? In which case, the lasers found
> >available in the 'Trek world most likely might not damage the ship and be
> >completely reflected - but who knows whether this is purely down to
> >'effective strength' of the shields and weapons? It would certainly be
> >naive to just simply say Picard: "Screw the Death Star, it can't touch us
> >anyhow" until it was tested otherwise...
>
> know....
> Aside from that, lasers are simple beams of light. They reflect off of the
> navigational deflectors. Starships are never threatened by lasers,
> intensity or photon-frequency irrelevant. What doesn't hit, can't hurt
> you.
>
Oh no, stop right there. We are in agreement that the lasers will hit
you. Just because it won't hit the hull doesn't mean your clear. The
Enterprise (without metaphasic shielding) would get toasted ultracrispy
inside a star, hell in the stars corona.
Now imagine something like that focusing at your shields. Your hull
isn't touched in the initial phase. But your shields are overloaded
because of the energetic backlash from the mass of light particles
barraging it. Your shield generator gets clogged with dense compacted
photon particles and don't work effectively. Pretty soon, the shields
fail. Now you have your standard background radiation to deal with.
You've also got the ionic interference about you to deal with, the
interaction with hullskin and concentrated radiation.
Your ship may yet survive, but you as an entity onboard are going to be
bombarded with radiation and other particles as well as some nice
temperate heat (ever been in a car with the windows shut on a hot day at
noon with the sun directly overhead???)
Think about it.. Your ship MAY make it (extremely damaged.. Kiss those
pretty little touch panels goodbye as they melt under the heat, kiss
your clothes goodbye as they combust in the heat. Say goodbye to any
plastics. Say ta ta to the atmosphere as it expands and causes
structural damage, perhaps a hull breach... but don't worry, your lungs
would've burnt crispy long before that happened and you, an entity
composed of 75-95% water would be boiled and baked quite dead before the
hull breach was a concern.
Kind of sucks huh.. Doesn't matter if they can make you explode... they
don't really have to. Just change your natural environment enough to let
physics take over.
So the death star could screw the D, or any trek ship over crispy unless
the Trek Techs got together to figure this one out.
Teihl
Celes
>> We know that SW ships can outrun Fed ships (SW ships can cross the
galaxy
>> in only a few days) SW has many more ships (it must take millions of
ships
>> to patrol a galaxy, or at least several tousand) SW has greater
industrial
>> might (with the thousands of more planets.)
>
>SW doesn't take place in the same galaxy as Trek does. So any such
>comparisons are automatically meaningless.
Any galaxy that has as many species in it as SW does is going to have lots
of planets. Assuming ideal conditions (say one high tech species evolves
for evey 100 star systems,) your looking at a galaxy with Millions of
stars, most of which are many lightyears apart. IN ST like condicions
(under a hundred species in the 1/5 of the explored galaxy???) Your looking
at a galaxy much much larger than the milky way.
Celes
>>It says below that a star destroyer has 4 terrawatt weapons. The
species
>>847? (from the Voyager cliffhanger) seem to be copies of the Shawdows
from
>>B5. It has been stated that B5 ships use terrawatt weapons, so it's
>>reasonable that Species 847? also uses terrawatt weapons (being they
have
>>everything else that the shawdows have, telepathy, non-humaniod looks,
>>organic ships, ability to take over people, ability to destroy planets,
>>ect. ect.) We've seen how easily a few ships from Species 847? took
apart
>>so many Borg ships, so it's resonable to assume that Star Destroyers
would
>>have an equally easy time with Borg or Federation ships.
>
>This is absolute nonsense. You're assuming that ships from different
>shows have similar power ratings becasue they LOOK the same? Rubbish!
Re-read the middle part of the above paragraph. A assumed much more that
looks.
>>As for "the Borg would assimilate the Death Star" argument, they can't.
>>Period. The Empire still uses a lot of projectile weapons similar to
>>modren guns. We've seen that modren guns can kill borg (First Contact).
>
>We've seen that projectile weapons can kill TWO Borg. After two or three
>Borg are killed, the rest adapt. Same with any other weapon. That's the
>whole problem with the Borg - no matter what you try, you just end up
>making them stronger. In the end you become defenceless.
Species 847? seems to have found a way. We've seen more than TWO borg
killed by physical means. Data chocked one, and Worf cut some. Borg
simply arn't going to be able to adapt to physical things.
>>We know that SW ships can outrun Fed ships (SW ships can cross the
galaxy
>>in only a few days) SW has many more ships (it must take millions of
ships
>>to patrol a galaxy, or atleast several tousand) SW has greater
industrial
>>might (with the thousands of more planets.)
>>
>We have no evidence whatsoever that the Empire occupies the whole
>galaxy,
The books (Young Jedi Knights and some others Ibelieve) state it/
>and none that they can cross it in a few days
How did they get outside the galaxy in ESB?
>I always assumed that SW and ST ships are about as
>fast as each other, for whatever that's worth.
Thank you, It's more than most ST supporters give.
>SW probably has 500 - 1000 ships,
To patrol a galaxy?
>if the force gathered at Endor is any
"Most of the Empire is out in a vain attempt to hunt for us" or something
like that was the quote in ROTJ. I was severly flamed in an earlier fight
(in which I supported ST) for suggesting that there were only a few ships
at Endor. The book ROTJ puts the number in the thousands, and even the
Special Editions cranck up the number.
>indication. I'm assuming that that was a significant portion of the
>fleet, perhaps 10% or so. But so what? It probably took thousands of
>knights on horseback to patrol Europe in the middle ages, but you
>wouldn't want to be on their side in a fight with 10 men with machine
>guns. A technological edge in weapons can easily overcome numbers. Look
>at the Gulf war - Allied weapons where maybe 15 years ahead of the Iraqi
>weapons. ST weapons tech is well over a century ahead of SW tech.
SW tech is way ahead of 24th century ST, but that is
A fight for another day, perhaps.
>A fight between the two would be no contest. Especially once the
>Federation began using trilithium torpedoes to destroy SW star systems
>and fleets.
Or the Empire got the Suncrusher, or Q distroyed both fleets and make them
fight hand to hand, or magcaly warp and hyperspace ceased to exist, or the
29th century time fllet helps the Empire win at Endor, so the emperor goes
back in time to kill the founders of the old republic. I prefer sandard
weapons myself. It, ahh, keeps the discussion in the realm of
possibility.
Celes
>> You are working on the basis of very loose assumptions, and not a
single
>> hard fact to back any of it up.
>>
>> Ben Z. Tels
>How can you compare 'assumption' and 'fact' in a fictitious environment?
>All are 'assumption' since none of them are 'real'.
>
>Not meaning to knock you directly for this, but I don't see that a 'my
>proof is more real than your proof' scenario can exist in such a topic..
>unless of course, you are Spock.. ;)
Being Ben's on my kill filter I had to reply to someone else's message. I
agree with Nick. We're ALL speculating on something some writers dreamed
up. There isn't any hard facts to base any of this up. If that one
episode of TNG had never said lasers couldn't go through modren shields, or
there had never been an Suncrusher in a SW book, these discussion would be
vey diffrent.
I'm assuming this was against some particualr point I made that you didn't
like. With 6-7 hours of SW film and new books only coming out evey few
months (and most of the books are about people, not tech) we have to make
some leaps. Sorry if it was against ST, but you ST peopel have made many
leaps yourself. Such as Turbolasers are lasers, or that Fed shields stop
ALL lasers, or SW ships can't travel faster than light, or the Borg and Q
would help in a fight, or ST would use Technobabble to find some new way of
detecting SW ships and would use some new technobabble weapons to completly
disable the SD (where as the Empire would immediatly surrender and join the
Federation).
I won't make any leaps if you won't, but soon the discussions would become
more, "I think this simply because.." than they already are.
Celes
Sorry I didn't include this with my other message. According ti the book
"The Next Tenthousand Years" lasers of a high enought power could cause a
star to go nova. Do you ST people really think a ships sheilds could Stand
against that. The lasers that Worf or someone said couldn't hurt the
navigational shields where probaly from a primitive culture. Lasers evolve
just like everything else.
Richard Wheeler
OK, here I go again.
Star Destroyer captains are very confident in their ships and do not
consider a small freighter any threat to their mighty vessels. Therefore
they would not see a need to raise shields.
The sheilds on the ship could've already been knocked out by other
firepower during the battle of Endor.
Now on the Star Trek side, based on what I've seen in DS9, Klingon Bird of
Prey's do have shields. I'm not sure if the following is the exact words
used so bare with me: Their sheilds weren't down, we didn't even scratch
their hull. This is from the episode when Kul Dukat is commanding a
freighter, and he captures a Bird of Prey then leaves his daughter on DS9.
Celes wrote in article <5p7dg2$sgb$4...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
>
>>> Do Star Destroyers have shields? The Millennium Falcon actually landed
>>> on one in TESB!
>
>Yes, and maybe it found a hole (such as the one Picard crawled through in
>Generations.
>
>>> Do Super-Star destroyers have shields? The MF flew
>>> within a about fifty or sixty feet of the ships hull at the end of
>TESB.
>>> In battle sequences shots continually hit the actual hulls of the
ships
>>> without meeting ANY barrier first - judging from the film evidence it
>>> doesn't even look like any of these ships even HAVE shields!
>
>DO KLINGON SHIPS HAVE SHIELDS?????
>Remember when the Defiant flew 60 feet from Worf's battleship in the
>alternate reality.
>
>
>
>
>
Cmdr. Teihl Armstree
G
> Tell me with a straight face that the Death Star can even hit a
> Runabout. We don't know that that weapon is a super laser, that I know
> of. It's not mentioned in any film, and I don't count novels as canon.
> It certainly didn't LOOK like a laser - a laser wouldn't have that
> effect on a planet, no matter how powerful, and laser beams coming
> together don't generate another beam the way it was shown. I doubt that
> that was a laser.
Beeen following this and was considering not responding but this
paragraph demands it. The sun of our solar system would burn this planet
crispy without the atmosphere to protect us. Ever have sunburn? That is
WITH an atmosphere... Imagine without one.
A concentrated balst of light energy would seriously screw up a planet
and cook it crispy.. Depnding on the intensity and the
refraction/dispersion aspect of the planet in question's atmosphere.. a
great many things can happen. There are lasers today that won't hurt the
skin, but there are laser today that will put holes in walls, humans,
and rock so we can't hide behind the 'lasers are harmless' excuse
because they aren't.
The Runabout may not be affected because of its shields from the photon
energy produced by the death star laser, but ionic residues collected
from the laser cutting through intervening spacial particals between the
Death Star and the Runabout could cause enough interference to drop the
shields and let the laser cook crispy the interior of the runabout, its
occupants and any plastics/resins within.
In short, I think the runabout would survive...well its spaceframe would
anyway.
Andrew Krywonizka
Chris Trimmer wrote:
> Not to mention that a Star Destroyer carries 40 Turbolasers compared
> to maybe 8 phaser banks.
Actually, and ISD carries 60 turbolasers, as well as 60 ion cannons and
10 tractor beams. An SSD carries 500 turbolasers (in various configs),
plus 250 ion cannons, 250 concussion missile tubes and 40 tractor beams.
If Star Trek fans can't see that this ship would kick *any* ST ship's
ass (including the Borg), then that's pretty sad.
Andrew K.
Ben Z. Tels
>shields at a certain 'strength' right? In which case, the lasers found
>available in the 'Trek world most likely might not damage the ship and be
>completely reflected - but who knows whether this is purely down to
>'effective strength' of the shields and weapons? It would certainly be
>naive to just simply say Picard: "Screw the Death Star, it can't touch us
>anyhow" until it was tested otherwise...
Maybe not, but it was LaForge who made the statement and he should
know....
Aside from that, lasers are simple beams of light. They reflect off of the
navigational deflectors. Starships are never threatened by lasers,
intensity or photon-frequency irrelevant. What doesn't hit, can't hurt
you.
>Yes the Death Star had shields (to my knowledge) at least when it was
>orbiting Endor, because it was protected by the shield generators the
>rebels shut down from that very same moon. (I hope strongly here that
I've
>not screwed up.. I don't try to claim to be an expert in either field,
but
>I thought these poster's comments were incorrect personally, however,
>didn't a few Y-Wings bounce off of afore-mentioned shields before the
>generator was shut down?).
No. They evaded. If you want I can look it up though.
>Yes they have shields. The Falcon also has shields, and I'm fairly sure
>that it is indicative in the films, though I couldn't give any references
>to promise anything. Shields do not have to exist as pretty coloured
>transparent bubble-type entities. When you wax your car, it gets
shielded
>from harmful sun rays, but it's a shield that cannot be 'bumped into' due
>to it's proximity with the car surface. Probably a bad analogy, but I
>don't see why shields have to be stereotypical and not simply act in a
>fashion akin to TripleWax ;) They could indeed have both (or else, my
>previous comments about the Death Star's shields are probably already
>nullified ;) ).
Aside from the fact that being shielded doesn't prevcent circuits from
exploding on every hit on the Falcon, with any type of shield up the Falcon
shouldn't have been able to land on the hull.
>Laser's can be channelled/concentrated, else laser itself is a
>self-defeating terminology isn't it.. they can also be effected and
>directed using prisms, etc. So I don't see the Death Star (considering
it
>is a fantasy technology to all extents, as are both realms in whole) as
>being an impossiblity. Your previous paragraph to me seems to hold no
real
>content as such - but no offence meant.
I don't exactly see what you mean by channeled, but lasers cannot be
concentrated into single beams from multiple ones in the way we saw the DS
do. Focussed on one point yes, combined no. You need lenses to do that.
Ben Z. Tels
The Borg move freely through vacuum, without the aid of a spacesuit (see
"First Contact").
Assuming that a DS's main weapon is even still effective after reaching a
Borg planet (which in itself is unlikely to ever happen, considering the
lengthy trek through Borg territory), and assuming the planet is not
shielded in any way, the Borg would lose one of the undoubtedly hundreds of
assimilated planets they have. And would retaliate by destroying the DS,
whose weapons would by then be completely useless.
--
Ben Z. Tels
opti...@stack.nl
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle
forever."
-- Tsiolkovsky
Nick Darlington wrote in article <01bc84dd$afb5d720$767a...@nickd.demon.co
.uk>...
InterWeb
Jeff wrote in article <33b4709e...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>...
>mgas...@infoave.net (Michael Gaskins) wrote:
>That speed is non hyperspace speed. When any SW ship goes into
>hyperspace they travel differently.
>
Similar to Star Trek's Transwarp drive but kinda different in that
Transwarp (as I remeber it) was some kind of paralell dimension and
hyperspace was a whole other kind of space (correct me if I'm wrong here)
InterWeb
Spike wrote in article ...
>Who Cares about speed, a Galaxy Class Shop could easily over power a Star
>Destroyer with Phasers, Run Circles around them with Impulse (Star
>Distroyers have Thrusters...) and pound on them with Torpedoes.
>As for Death Star - remember Genesis? :)
>
But the Star Destroyer could hyper out of danger before the Galaxy even had
time to power up her phasers. And who'd want to use a Genesis torpedo on
the Death Star? That's overkill. Regular weapons would probably be enough
(I'm just guessing here, correct me if my estimates are wrong)
InterWeb
Brian Barjenbruch wrote in article ...
>> We know that SW ships can outrun Fed ships (SW ships can cross the
galaxy
>> in only a few days) SW has many more ships (it must take millions of
ships
>> to patrol a galaxy, or at least several tousand) SW has greater
industrial
>> might (with the thousands of more planets.)
>
>SW doesn't take place in the same galaxy as Trek does. So any such
>comparisons are automatically meaningless.
>
If you've seen The Empire Strikes Back then you can see that the "galaxy
far far away" is a spiral galaxy like our own and seems to be roughly the
same size, so these comparisons are not necessarily meaningless.
InterWeb
Graham Kennedy wrote in article ...
species
>>847? (from the Voyager cliffhanger) seem to be copies of the Shawdows
from
>>B5. It has been stated that B5 ships use terrawatt weapons, so it's
>>reasonable that Species 847? also uses terrawatt weapons (being they
have
>>everything else that the shawdows have, telepathy, non-humaniod looks,
>>organic ships, ability to take over people, ability to destroy planets,
>>ect. ect.) We've seen how easily a few ships from Species 847? took
apart
>>so many Borg ships, so it's resonable to assume that Star Destroyers
would
>>have an equally easy time with Borg or Federation ships.
>
>This is absolute nonsense. You're assuming that ships from different
>shows have similar power ratings becasue they LOOK the same? Rubbish!
No, I believe he was comparing them because they have the same weapons
capabilities and such
>
>>
>>As for "the Borg would assimilate the Death Star" argument, they can't.
>>Period. The Empire still uses a lot of projectile weapons similar to
>>modren guns. We've seen that modren guns can kill borg (First Contact).
>
>We've seen that projectile weapons can kill TWO Borg. After two or three
>Borg are killed, the rest adapt. Same with any other weapon. That's the
>whole problem with the Borg - no matter what you try, you just end up
>making them stronger. In the end you become defenceless.
>
>>We know that SW ships can outrun Fed ships (SW ships can cross the
galaxy
>>in only a few days) SW has many more ships (it must take millions of
ships
>>to patrol a galaxy, or atleast several tousand) SW has greater
industrial
>>might (with the thousands of more planets.)
>>
>
>We have no evidence whatsoever that the Empire occupies the whole
>galaxy, and none that they can cross it in a few days. We know the
>Millennium Falcon can go "point five beyond lightspeed", whatever that
>is supposed to mean. I always assumed that SW and ST ships are about as
>fast as each other, for whatever that's worth.
>
>SW probably has 500 - 1000 ships, if the force gathered at Endor is any
>indication. I'm assuming that that was a significant portion of the
>fleet, perhaps 10% or so. But so what? It probably took thousands of
>knights on horseback to patrol Europe in the middle ages, but you
>wouldn't want to be on their side in a fight with 10 men with machine
>guns. A technological edge in weapons can easily overcome numbers. Look
>at the Gulf war - Allied weapons where maybe 15 years ahead of the Iraqi
>weapons. ST weapons tech is well over a century ahead of SW tech.
>
How can you say that Star Trek weapons are "well over a century ahead" of
Star Wars weapons if the Star Wars weapons had a head start of "a long time
ago", which for all we know could be a million years head start
>A fight between the two would be no contest. Especially once the
>Federation began using trilithium torpedoes to destroy SW star systems
>and fleets.
>
>--
>Graham Kennedy
>
InterWeb
Jon Chapin (Assassin) wrote in article <33B60...@shore.intercom.net>...
>
>
>Tell me with a straight face that the super-LASER blast from the death
>star wouldn't effect a Shuttlecraft/runabout in any way. It's a bigger
>example, I give you that, but according to your theory, the Deathstar
>laser blast wouldn't even go penetrate the runabouts shields. In that
>light, I think turbolasers could effect ST shields :-) As for
>"productive members of society", you must admit ST has it's
>"unproductive members" that are under starfleet jurisdiction, and
>starfleet isn't one to force a life upon others, except those in it's
>military/government.
>>
Good point. I mean, the Death Star's "weak pea-shooter" laser blew away a
planet. They can't honestly say that the DS would have no affect on a Star
Trek ship's sheilds
InterWeb
Ben Z. Tels wrote in article <5p698o$52v$4...@news.IAEhv.nl>...
>Nah. Phasers aren't plasma based. Work with nadions.
Point me toward some nadions
Graham Kennedy
In article <01bc84dd$afb5d720$767a...@nickd.demon.co.uk>, Nick
Darlington <ne...@nickd.demon.co.uk> writes
>Graham Kennedy <gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><TZP3FSAv...@adeadend.demon.co.uk>...
>[snipped]
>> Borg are killed, the rest adapt. Same with any other weapon. That's the
>> whole problem with the Borg - no matter what you try, you just end up
>> making them stronger. In the end you become defenceless.
>
>How do the Borg adapt to the vaccum of space? If the answer is not too
>well (or sudden changes in atmosphere) then how would they cope to having
>their planet of inhabitance nuked by the Death Star?
Actually the Borg have adapted to space - see First Contact, where Borg
walked around in vacuum. I assume that was why their skin was different
in FC - becasue these Borg had encountered vacuum and established some
modified form of skin to adapt to it.
>
>Just curious :) I'd like to see how planet-2 coped and adapted after
>planet-1 bit the dust, literally.
As for this, a Borg planet was recently blown away in Voyager. We shall
see how they react in later series, I hope. But bear in mind that Borg
planets probably cannot adapt the way their ships can.
>
>Regards (from a non-expert on the subject, I hasten to add),
>Nick
>
>
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
In article <5p7gqc$7...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>, InterWeb <krb-
br...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Graham Kennedy wrote in article ...
>>
>>SW probably has 500 - 1000 ships, if the force gathered at Endor is any
>>indication. I'm assuming that that was a significant portion of the
>>fleet, perhaps 10% or so. But so what? It probably took thousands of
>>knights on horseback to patrol Europe in the middle ages, but you
>>wouldn't want to be on their side in a fight with 10 men with machine
>>guns. A technological edge in weapons can easily overcome numbers. Look
>>at the Gulf war - Allied weapons where maybe 15 years ahead of the Iraqi
>>weapons. ST weapons tech is well over a century ahead of SW tech.
>>
>
>How can you say that Star Trek weapons are "well over a century ahead" of
>Star Wars weapons if the Star Wars weapons had a head start of "a long time
>ago", which for all we know could be a million years head start
Or could be a five year head start. I say it because the Empire uses
laser weapons, has very poor targeting systems, and badly designed
warships. I always thought the Empire was older than the Federation, and
has a larger population. But their technology seems stagnant -
presumably because a repressive regime tends to stifle creativity. It
wouldn't surprise me to find out that the Imperial fleet ships are
centuries old hand-me-downs that nobody remembers how to build any more,
constantly being re-fitted with lower and lower quality weapons as
Imperial technology sinks further into the mire. Pure speculation of
course, but it would explain why their primitive technology exists
alongside such large warships.
>
>>A fight between the two would be no contest. Especially once the
>>Federation began using trilithium torpedoes to destroy SW star systems
>>and fleets.
>>
>>--
>>Graham Kennedy
>>
>
>
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
In article <5p67fm$v52$1...@nnrp1.snfc21.pacbell.net>, Richard Wheeler
<ric...@pacbell.net> writes
>According to the Super Laser's specs, Eight lasers get focused into the
>actual blast.
>
>>Tell me with a straight face that the Death Star can even hit a
>>Runabout. We don't know that that weapon is a super laser, that I know
>>of. It's not mentioned in any film, and I don't count novels as canon.
>>It certainly didn't LOOK like a laser - a laser wouldn't have that
>>effect on a planet, no matter how powerful, and laser beams coming
>>together don't generate another beam the way it was shown. I doubt that
>>that was a laser.
>>
>
>
What specs? Nothing was said on film about this. Even so, lasers do not
do what was shown on screen :
|
|
| One big beam comes from the meeting point.
|
/\
Beams come / \ from either side (plus others)
togther / \
/ \
Lasers do not do this. And as I said, no matter how powerful a laser it
would not do what the film showed to a planet. At most it would drill a
hole straight through it. A very small hole.
But yes, if that was a laser, I would expect it to bounce off a
Runabouts shields. It's like asking how powerful a laser has to be to
burn through a perfect mirror Answer : Infinitely powerful!
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
In article <01bc84dd$02b0a0a0$767a...@nickd.demon.co.uk>, Nick
Darlington <ne...@nickd.demon.co.uk> writes
>[Cut down cos this is starting to get messy]
>Graham Kennedy <gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><3pN+pCAk...@adeadend.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <33B60...@shore.intercom.net>, "Jon Chapin (Assassin)"
>> <cha...@shore.intercom.net> writes
>> >OK, my second post :-)
>[...]
>> >Well, in that case, you must also take into that the fact that guns are
>> >just advanced crossbows(ammo is minus the shaft, only the propulsion is
>> >different, it's the same concept in every way), and tanks are powerful
>> >guns. Thus Turbolasers can be much more powerful than regular lasers in
>> >your train of thought (a tank is more powerful than a spear, the prequel
>> >to the bow&arrow)
>>
>> That's pushing the analogy a little far I think. Lasers and phasers
>> operate on fundamentally different laws of physics, do damage in
>> completely different ways.
>
>Possibly, but the 'fundamental laws' are not that different, which is
>transferal of energy, in a destructive state.
Yes they are different. Phasers are not a method of transferring energy
as such - they cause a breakdown in the strong nuclear force, destroying
the target by causing its atoms to disassociate. They don't use heat to
break down the structure.
>
>[...]
>> >
>> >Well, I'm not sure. a starships nav-shields may not be succeptible to
>> >low-power lasers (hell, human skin is barely affected by some lasers we
>> >have today), but if you put a ton of energy into the shot, well, I think
>> >you're getting my drift. It all also goes back to the crossbow VS tank
>> >bit. While a Crossbow may not put a dent in a tank, another tank's guns
>> >sure can. They're basically the same, all I did was add power and a
>> >different KE source (lead instead of wood)
>>
>> It's not a matter of energy. If the shields are a perfect reflector of
>> laser light, for example, then it wouldn't matter how much energy you
>> put into the laser - it would just reflect off harmlessley. However it's
>> supposed to work, Picard did NOT say "lasers with that power rating"
>> will not affect the ship, he specifically said that lasers as a whole
>> would have no effect.
>
>Well, Picard's comments cannot be taken too literally.. the ships have
>shields at a certain 'strength' right? In which case, the lasers found
>available in the 'Trek world most likely might not damage the ship and be
>completely reflected - but who knows whether this is purely down to
>'effective strength' of the shields and weapons? It would certainly be
>naive to just simply say Picard: "Screw the Death Star, it can't touch us
>anyhow" until it was tested otherwise...
The man said lasers had no effect. That's what he said. You're trying to
say that's not what he meant, becasue if it is then you loose the
argument. But there is no evidence that Picard was lying, exaggerating,
or doing anything but speak the simple truth.
>
>[...]
>> >Not necessarily. There has never been an instance I know of where a
>> >physical object penetrated SW shields (games refute that, and if yer
>> >talking about that famous "the A-Wing went through the shields!" bit,
>> >keep in mind the shields were destroyed on the SSD, and I quote "Sir,
>> >we've lost the main deflector!", then the officer said to intensify FIRE
>> >POWER, not shields.)
>>
>> No, I'm talking about the numerous occasions when we see fighters flying
>> very, very close to SW ships. Did the Death Star have shields? The
>
>Yes the Death Star had shields (to my knowledge) at least when it was
>orbiting Endor, because it was protected by the shield generators the
>rebels shut down from that very same moon. (I hope strongly here that I've
>not screwed up.. I don't try to claim to be an expert in either field, but
>I thought these poster's comments were incorrect personally, however,
>didn't a few Y-Wings bounce off of afore-mentioned shields before the
>generator was shut down?).
I'm talking about the death star mark one, in Star Wars - not Return of
the Jedi. Ships flew right down to the surface and destroyed targets on
that surface, without any resistance from shields.
>
>> fighters had no trouble flying right down to the surface in Star Wars.
>
>When the 'battle station was fully operational' - but knowingly prematurely
>so by the imperials themselves.. see previous comment.
>
>> Do Star Destroyers have shields? The Millennium Falcon actually landed
>> on one in TESB!
>
>Yes they have shields. The Falcon also has shields, and I'm fairly sure
>that it is indicative in the films, though I couldn't give any references
>to promise anything. Shields do not have to exist as pretty coloured
>transparent bubble-type entities. When you wax your car, it gets shielded
>from harmful sun rays, but it's a shield that cannot be 'bumped into' due
>to it's proximity with the car surface. Probably a bad analogy, but I
>don't see why shields have to be stereotypical and not simply act in a
>fashion akin to TripleWax ;) They could indeed have both (or else, my
>previous comments about the Death Star's shields are probably already
>nullified ;) ).
But then in Star Wars how did the X-Wangs destroy their targets? They
flew down to the surface, fired, and things went BOOM! So if the Death
Star did have shields, an X-Wing can punch through them first time?
(snip)
>>
>> Tell me with a straight face that the Death Star can even hit a
>> Runabout. We don't know that that weapon is a super laser, that I know
>> of. It's not mentioned in any film, and I don't count novels as canon.
>> It certainly didn't LOOK like a laser - a laser wouldn't have that
>> effect on a planet, no matter how powerful, and laser beams coming
>> together don't generate another beam the way it was shown. I doubt that
>> that was a laser.
>[...]
>
>Laser's can be channelled/concentrated, else laser itself is a
>self-defeating terminology isn't it.. they can also be effected and
>directed using prisms, etc. So I don't see the Death Star (considering it
>is a fantasy technology to all extents, as are both realms in whole) as
>being an impossiblity. Your previous paragraph to me seems to hold no real
>content as such - but no offence meant.
>
Let's see, that paragraph said : 1) Can the Death Star even hit a target
that can move in an unpredictable path. 2) Is the planet-killing weapon
actually a laser. 3) There is no evidence to support that it is. 4) The
visual evidence supports the belief that it is not.
Now I'm not claiming this paragraph should be in the record books as the
most content-laden in history, but I think it's a pretty good paragraph
as paragraphs go. (You may detect a certain sarcasm here. No offense
intended. :) )
Seriously, laser beams can be manipulated by passing them through
lenses, etc. But this is NOT what we see. We see a bunch of beams coming
together in empty space, and a further beam projecting forward from that
point. No prisms, no mirrors, no nothing. Lasers don't do that.
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
In article <5p7dg2$sgb$4...@shadow.skypoint.net>, Celes
<ce...@deskmedia.com> writes
>
>>> It's not a matter of energy. If the shields are a perfect reflector of
>>> laser light, for example, then it wouldn't matter how much energy you
>
Because they are not perfect reflectors. Shields may be.
(snip)
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
In article <33B6F7...@widomaker.com>, "Cmdr. Teihl Armstree"
<arms...@widomaker.com> writes
>G
>> Tell me with a straight face that the Death Star can even hit a
>> Runabout. We don't know that that weapon is a super laser, that I know
>> of. It's not mentioned in any film, and I don't count novels as canon.
>> It certainly didn't LOOK like a laser - a laser wouldn't have that
>> effect on a planet, no matter how powerful, and laser beams coming
>> together don't generate another beam the way it was shown. I doubt that
>> that was a laser.
>
>
>paragraph demands it. The sun of our solar system would burn this planet
>crispy without the atmosphere to protect us. Ever have sunburn? That is
>WITH an atmosphere... Imagine without one.
>
>A concentrated balst of light energy would seriously screw up a planet
>and cook it crispy.. Depnding on the intensity and the
>refraction/dispersion aspect of the planet in question's atmosphere.. a
>great many things can happen. There are lasers today that won't hurt the
>skin, but there are laser today that will put holes in walls, humans,
>and rock so we can't hide behind the 'lasers are harmless' excuse
>because they aren't.
No matter how powerful the laser, it would not have the effect shown. A
laser is a very focused light beam, it would probably burn a hole
through the planet - an entry hole a few feet wide, and exit hole a few
miles or tens of miles wide. You would be able to fan it back and forth
and chop the planet up, but you would not be able to blow a planet away
as shown.
>
>The Runabout may not be affected because of its shields from the photon
>energy produced by the death star laser, but ionic residues collected
>from the laser cutting through intervening spacial particals between the
>Death Star and the Runabout could cause enough interference to drop the
>shields and let the laser cook crispy the interior of the runabout, its
>occupants and any plastics/resins within.
>
>In short, I think the runabout would survive...well its spaceframe would
>anyway.
Where the hell do you get this stuff? Interplanetary space has about ten
atoms per cubic centimetre, so at most a few thousand or million atoms
will interact with the shields. That's about 1exp-13 coulombs of charge.
That's supposed to drop a shield system? I build up more charge than
that rubbing my hands together!
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
In article <33B755...@erols.com>, Simon Juncal <s^jun...@erols.com>
writes
>Ben Z. Tels wrote:
>>
>> The Borg move freely through vacuum, without the aid of a spacesuit (see
>> "First Contact").
>
>is __VITAL___ to their survival (if you don't believe me consider the
>ending in which a corosive gas kills them by eating away there fleshy
>bits) do you have ANY idea what happens to flesh or any organic compound
>after a few seconds in cold hard vacume? disruption at cell level,
>bursting of blood (or any other liquid) vessels, eventualy solidly
>freezing (= killing) of every organic cell... but a heavyer than air
>gas like substance kill's um dead, the Borg are so "perfect" that they
>don't BOTHER to try and get above the substance.
>
>This is not to mention that this "cybernetically enhanced" race moves
>like zombies, doesn't recognize a threat until it kills two or three
>of them, SUUUUUUUUUCK! at hand to hand combat (10 preditors or Aliens
>could take out a "cube" (another thing why a CUBE the most fundamentally
>sound/stable shape in nature is a sphere) in a matter of hours.
>
>All very believable, then there's Picards glassteel face plate being
>BUSTED (in zero G) by a Borg foot... NOOOO that wouldn't have sent
>that Borg zombie spining into space due to the MASSIVE force it would
>take to break a such an alloy, or does TNG not use glassteel
>because Scotty "invented" it? (or maybe because it wasn't convienant?)
>
>All in all I'd would have to say that the Borg wouldn't have survived
>in there own enviroment to even cave man stage (let alone to the point
>of developing technology), simply due to there inherent flaws,
>Perfect race, *scowl*
>
The whole point of the Borg is that they have NO imagination. The adapt
to SPECIFIC threats, and those alone. So they would have adapted to
vacuum after a few of them died in it, presumably be evolving some
modified skin layer. This is (I assume) why the Borg in FC look
different to others we have seen. They had never been exposed to Warp
coolant, so they had not adapted to it - and had no time to adapt to it
once it was released, since it got them all at once.
--
Graham Kennedy
Ben Z. Tels
The ability of lasers to make stars go nova (if at all possible) has
nothing with power.
Let's examine this theoretically:
Lasers are devices that emit coherent beams of light. Each one of such
beams consists of photons of exactly the same frequncy and direction (you
can't see a real laser from the side, just by looking straight at it). This
is achieved by electrically charging ions to beyond their emission point (a
certain amount of energy, depending on the ion's number of shells). When
the outer shell of an ion is filled and more energy is introduced, the
surplu energy is emitted in the form of a photon. Through lenses and other
methods, these photons are emitted as a single, coherent beam.
This beam travels in a straight line until it reaches an obstacle. When
this happens, there are two possibilities:
1 The photon continues (possibly in a different direction).
2 The photon is absorbed and it's energy is transformed into either kinetic
energy or heat.
Exactly what happens depends on the material struck by the photon. If it is
capable of absorbing the photon, it will do so.
Since a star consists of materials that emit photons of every frequency
daily, it is reasonable to assume that a photon striking a star will be
absorbed, most likely by an ion that recently emitted a similar photon.
This introduces energy into the aforementioned star.
Novas occur when a star "produces" more energy than it emits. To "produce"
more energy than it emits could be simulated by introducing energy into a
star at a rate higher than that of emission minus the rate of the stars own
production.
So, simply put, a laser could theoretically cause a star to go nova by
functioning as a device that introduces energy into that star. But any
laser transmits energy. In point of fact, current laserts could cause a
star to go nova in this way. It would just take a long time.
The entire process does assume one thing though, namely that energy
transmitted in the form of photons is absorbed and not reflected away.
Now, back to the hypothetical situation known as Star Trek. Enterprise is
equipped with navigational deflectors capable of withstanding any type of
laserfire, at least known to the Federation ("The outrageous Okona [TNG]").
Since type does not matter, it is reasonable to assume the navigational
deflectors simply reflect laserlight away and do not absorb it.
This being the case, the power-output of a laser does not matter. Since the
laser is simply reflected off the deflectors, its power is irrelevant on
basis of "that which does not hit you cannot hurt you".
--
Ben Z. Tels
opti...@stack.nl
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle
forever."
-- Tsiolkovsky
Celes wrote in article <5p7d05$sgb$3...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
Ben Z. Tels
Now assume a people for every planet and your galaxy is no more than a Star
Trek sector across.
Where do you get one race per 100 planets? Anyone can pull convenient
numbers out of the air.
--
Ben Z. Tels
opti...@stack.nl
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle
forever."
-- Tsiolkovsky
Celes wrote in article <5p7b38$rf2$3...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
Chrondeath Dracion
Ben Z. Tels wrote:
>
> Said so in the episode "The outrageous Okona [TNG]".
For those of us who haven't seen this episode, could someone post the
exact situation and the relevant quotes from it?
+--+
|\/| -Chrondeath Dracion
|/\| jed...@ix.netcom.com
+--+
Nick Darlington
> In article <01bc84dd$afb5d720$767a...@nickd.demon.co.uk>, Nick
> Darlington <ne...@nickd.demon.co.uk> writes
> >[snipped]
> >> We've seen that projectile weapons can kill TWO Borg. After two or
three
> >> Borg are killed, the rest adapt. Same with any other weapon. That's
the
> >> whole problem with the Borg - no matter what you try, you just end up
> >> making them stronger. In the end you become defenceless.
> >[snipped]
> >
> >How do the Borg adapt to the vaccum of space? If the answer is not too
> >well (or sudden changes in atmosphere) then how would they cope to
having
> >their planet of inhabitance nuked by the Death Star?
>
> Actually the Borg have adapted to space - see First Contact, where Borg
> walked around in vacuum. I assume that was why their skin was different
> in FC - becasue these Borg had encountered vacuum and established some
> modified form of skin to adapt to it.
I'm not sure you got my point on this one.. I accept that an atmosphere of
any type (including, no atmosphere) may be all within the Borg habitat, but
I was trying to refer to sudden and excessive change in atmosphere, which
unfortunately does nasty things to the body - even in an environment that
the species could normally survive in (take a diver or mountain climber
lowering or rising too rapidly, and you'll understand what I mean, then
magnify that removing a planet from under someone's toes so that it no
longer exists.. then make that same planet explode from beneath your toes..
etc).
That was my point anyway, and if the Borg can/could deal with this.. fair
enough, but that was my argument to be tested, not whether the conditions
of a vacuum would cause them any problem.
> >
> >Just curious :) I'd like to see how planet-2 coped and adapted after
> >planet-1 bit the dust, literally.
>
> As for this, a Borg planet was recently blown away in Voyager. We shall
> see how they react in later series, I hope. But bear in mind that Borg
> planets probably cannot adapt the way their ships can.
Did the Borg survive this (those on the planet)? If not, then that is
precisely what I was trying to explain earlier.
> >Regards (from a non-expert on the subject, I hasten to add),
> >Nick
[...]
Regards (and the same still applies as above ;) ),
Nick
Nick Darlington
> >
> >
> >Beeen following this and was considering not responding but this
> >paragraph demands it. The sun of our solar system would burn this planet
> >crispy without the atmosphere to protect us. Ever have sunburn? That is
> >WITH an atmosphere... Imagine without one.
> >
> >A concentrated balst of light energy would seriously screw up a planet
> >and cook it crispy.. Depnding on the intensity and the
> >refraction/dispersion aspect of the planet in question's atmosphere.. a
> >great many things can happen. There are lasers today that won't hurt the
> >skin, but there are laser today that will put holes in walls, humans,
> >and rock so we can't hide behind the 'lasers are harmless' excuse
> >because they aren't.
>
> No matter how powerful the laser, it would not have the effect shown. A
> laser is a very focused light beam, it would probably burn a hole
> through the planet - an entry hole a few feet wide, and exit hole a few
> miles or tens of miles wide. You would be able to fan it back and forth
> and chop the planet up, but you would not be able to blow a planet away
> as shown.
Just for the record.. is this assuming that the planet core is solid like a
cue ball or gassy like a planet.....?
High powered laser/heat, penetrating through to a large, and also pocketed,
gas core may well cause a planetary explosion.. at least, I think it would
anyway, not that I've been able to experiment on this. ;)
Ben Z. Tels
Yes, "we" can. Honestly, truthfully and all.
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle
forever."
-- Tsiolkovsky
InterWeb wrote in article <5p7hht$7...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>...
Nick Darlington
Ben Z. Tels <opti...@stack.nl> wrote in article
<5p8ugj$g9v$4...@news.IAEhv.nl>...
> Changing environments rapidly would get a few... once. The second batch
> would have no problem whatsoever.
[...]
A question: Does the race actually grow old and die (and therefore
reproduce), or are they also immortal in that sense too, and if not, why
did they not adapt? Secondly, how would the Borg elsewhere know to adapt,
when there would be no survivors of a planet supernova/explosion to tell
the tale - or do they also have unlimited telepathic capability too which
extends to auto-autopsy?
Curiosly,
Nick
Graham Kennedy
In article <33B6DA...@erols.com>, Simon Juncal <s^jun...@erols.com>
writes
>Graham Kennedy wrote:
>>
>> In article <33B59122...@gamesnet.net>, Andrew
>> <and...@gamesnet.net> writes
>> >so a phaser is a laser.
>>
>> No. A phaser is a particle beam weapon which at low energy disrupts the
>> neural system of the target (if it has one). At higher energies thermal
>> effects are induced, and at high settings it breaks down the strong
>> nuclear force, causing matter to disassociate. Note that a laser can
>> only cause thermal effects, and only that in targets which absorb their
>> particular frequency rather than being transparent/reflective to it.
>
>So being that ST ships are at least somewhat vunerable to "particle beam
>weapons" (prey tell WHAT KIND OF PARTICAL, perhaps um radiation?
>ie. light!)
No, nadions. A type of particle that interacts with the strong nuclear
force, among other things.
>
>I find it somewhat odd that a ship thats Vulnerable to "particles" of
>_any sort_ can travel at "warp" 9 (9x the speed of light or .9c?) in
>normal space, without having every atom collided with 1) Hygrogen
>"particles" 2) neutrino's 3) larger base metal dust and heavy metal
>dust.
>(in system) as well as micro meteor's.
That great big dish thing at the front of the engineering hull of most
starships is called a navigational deflector array. It's job is to shunt
aside atoms and micro-meteor's from the ships path while at impulse or
warp.
>
>Are you arguing that ST ships are invulnerable to ALL "particles" ???
>(and thus totally invulnerable to ANYTHING!!!!)
No, I'm saying that they are invulnerable to lasers.
>
>also if ST shields are invulnerable to "lasers" (in other words light
>of any intencity) then WHY IN THE HELL DO ___PHOTON___ (a particle of
>light) torp's do damage to them????
Photon torpedo is just a nickname, probably used because they glow while
in flight (ie give off photons). Their punch comes from a 3 kg
matter/antimatter warhead, approx yield up to 100 Megatons plus. The
effect of a photon torpedo is frequently underestimated by the n
Startrek, as I have said before. But they're pretty nasty.
>
>we would seem to have a rather LARGE contradiction here, how can a
>ship thats shields are vulnerable AT ALL to ANY particle travel at
>absurd +realativistic speeds in non-hyper space?
No we don't. The navigational deflector allows this, as I have said.
Interestingly enough, the nav deflector has a higher power rating than
any other ships component except the warp drive. On the other hand, Star
wars ships don't seem to bother with nav deflectors - even though by
your own logic this is a huge problem for them.
>
>why because ST writers wrote it that way.... making this whole
>speudo-scientific arguement baseless and laughable.
>
For star wars, anyway. Lucas really needs to put more thought into the
design of his warships.
--
Graham Kennedy
Matt Maurano
Perhaps there was some sort of mirror type thing going on there. Water
will refract light, why couldn't something refract it that much?
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:53:49 -0700, "Richard Wheeler"
<ric...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>According to the Super Laser's specs, Eight lasers get focused into the
>actual blast.
>
InterWeb
Graham Kennedy wrote in article ...
>>
>>How can you say that Star Trek weapons are "well over a century ahead"
of
>>Star Wars weapons if the Star Wars weapons had a head start of "a long
time
>>ago", which for all we know could be a million years head start
>
>Or could be a five year head start. I say it because the Empire uses
>laser weapons, has very poor targeting systems, and badly designed
>warships. I always thought the Empire was older than the Federation, and
>has a larger population. But their technology seems stagnant -
>presumably because a repressive regime tends to stifle creativity. It
>wouldn't surprise me to find out that the Imperial fleet ships are
>centuries old hand-me-downs that nobody remembers how to build any more,
>constantly being re-fitted with lower and lower quality weapons as
>Imperial technology sinks further into the mire. Pure speculation of
>course, but it would explain why their primitive technology exists
>alongside such large warships.
>
Very poor targeting systems? Badly designed warships? Huh? Let's take a
regular old TIE Fighter. No shields, weak hull, point 'n shoot lasers, but
that didn't matter. You get the really really huge numbers of T/Fs they
use and it won't make any difference. They build 'em simple so they can
build LOTS and LOTS of them quickly and cheaply and overwhelm their
opponent with numbers.
InterWeb
Graham Kennedy wrote in article ...
>>and cook it crispy.. Depnding on the intensity and the
>>refraction/dispersion aspect of the planet in question's atmosphere.. a
>>great many things can happen. There are lasers today that won't hurt the
>>skin, but there are laser today that will put holes in walls, humans,
>>and rock so we can't hide behind the 'lasers are harmless' excuse
>>because they aren't.
>
>No matter how powerful the laser, it would not have the effect shown. A
>laser is a very focused light beam, it would probably burn a hole
>through the planet - an entry hole a few feet wide, and exit hole a few
>miles or tens of miles wide. You would be able to fan it back and forth
>and chop the planet up, but you would not be able to blow a planet away
>as shown.
>
Maybe it would not have the affect shown if the planet had no core. But
remeber, a planet has all kinds of elements mixed up inside it, a laser
superheats them and BANG no more planet.
InterWeb
Graham Kennedy wrote in article ...
>
>Interestingly enough, the nav deflector has a higher power rating than
>any other ships component except the warp drive. On the other hand, Star
>wars ships don't seem to bother with nav deflectors - even though by
>your own logic this is a huge problem for them.
Oh yeah, I really need a navigational deflector to sweep away those scary
atoms. There are soooo many of them in space, I'm sooo scared of them! It
isn't a problem for them mostly because 1) at slow speeds they just need to
fire a blast of turbolaser at something large to vaporize it goodbye and
for small atoms as you said ST ships needed to be swept away who cares?
The majority of atoms a ship would encounter are harmless hydrogen. and 2)
at high speeds they enter hyperspace which is a whole different kind of
space so no need to vaporize things there.
>
>>
>>why because ST writers wrote it that way.... making this whole
>>speudo-scientific arguement baseless and laughable.
>>
>
>For star wars, anyway. Lucas really needs to put more thought into the
>design of his warships.
And then Star Trek ships are so weak they (in your own words) need a
navigational delfector to "shunt away atoms and mirco-meteors". Even
today's space shuttle gets hit with micro-meteors on its missions, and it
seems to do just fine.
InterWeb
Ben Z. Tels wrote in article <5p6pj3$6c5$1...@news.IAEhv.nl>...
> Nick Darlington wrote in article <01bc84dd$02b0a0a0$767a...@nickd.demon.c
o
>uk>...
>>Well, Picard's comments cannot be taken too literally.. the ships have
>>shields at a certain 'strength' right? In which case, the lasers found
>>available in the 'Trek world most likely might not damage the ship and
be
>>completely reflected - but who knows whether this is purely down to
>>'effective strength' of the shields and weapons? It would certainly be
>>naive to just simply say Picard: "Screw the Death Star, it can't touch
us
>>anyhow" until it was tested otherwise...
>
>know....
>Aside from that, lasers are simple beams of light. They reflect off of
the
>navigational deflectors. Starships are never threatened by lasers,
>intensity or photon-frequency irrelevant. What doesn't hit, can't hurt
>you.
>
But Turbolasers are not lasers in the true sense
>>Yes the Death Star had shields (to my knowledge) at least when it was
>>orbiting Endor, because it was protected by the shield generators the
>>rebels shut down from that very same moon. (I hope strongly here that
>I've
>>not screwed up.. I don't try to claim to be an expert in either field,
>but
>>I thought these poster's comments were incorrect personally, however,
>>didn't a few Y-Wings bounce off of afore-mentioned shields before the
>>generator was shut down?).
>
>No. They evaded. If you want I can look it up though.
>
>>Yes they have shields. The Falcon also has shields, and I'm fairly sure
>>that it is indicative in the films, though I couldn't give any
references
>>to promise anything. Shields do not have to exist as pretty coloured
>>transparent bubble-type entities. When you wax your car, it gets
>shielded
>>from harmful sun rays, but it's a shield that cannot be 'bumped into'
due
>>to it's proximity with the car surface. Probably a bad analogy, but I
>>don't see why shields have to be stereotypical and not simply act in a
>>fashion akin to TripleWax ;) They could indeed have both (or else, my
>>previous comments about the Death Star's shields are probably already
>>nullified ;) ).
>
>Aside from the fact that being shielded doesn't prevcent circuits from
>exploding on every hit on the Falcon, with any type of shield up the
Falcon
>shouldn't have been able to land on the hull.
But what's to say the shields were up? Shields surely sap some juice that
could have been being used in sensors or weapons or something. Sure the
Falcon was attacking but that doesn't necessarily mean that the SD put it
shields up because how much damage could the Falcon do really (just
guessing here)
>
>>Laser's can be channelled/concentrated, else laser itself is a
>>self-defeating terminology isn't it.. they can also be effected and
>>directed using prisms, etc. So I don't see the Death Star (considering
>it
>>is a fantasy technology to all extents, as are both realms in whole) as
>>being an impossiblity. Your previous paragraph to me seems to hold no
>real
>>content as such - but no offence meant.
>
>I don't exactly see what you mean by channeled, but lasers cannot be
>concentrated into single beams from multiple ones in the way we saw the
DS
>do. Focussed on one point yes, combined no. You need lenses to do that.
Hehe, the good folks at Lockheed-Martin might beg to differ with you
by
Actually, Picard said "THEIR lasers can't even penetrate our navigational
shields, don't they know that?" That ship was a personal civilian
freighter about the size of the M Falcon. It could fire all day and never
hurt an AT-AT walker, which has no shields.
Celes <ce...@deskmedia.com> wrote in article
<5p7cnt$sgb$2...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
>
> >Once and for all : Lasers can NOT even penetrate a starships
> >navigational shields, let alone its main shields. I don't care how many
> >words you put before or after the word laser - the presence of that word
> >alone makes them about as effective as a pea-shooter.
>
> Prove it. assuming Turbolasers are lasers, where does it say ALL lasers
> can't go through Fed shields? My CD laser can't blow up a missle, but
the
> ones that were used in the Star Wars and SDI defence programs can.
>
> >Also, since a SW ships shields can be penetrated by a laser, they are
> >presumably far more susceptible to phaser energy. And since physical
> >objects such as fighters can penetrate them easily, then a photon
> >torpedo could do the same.
>
> Fed shields CAN be penitrated by lasers too, so the rest is illogical.
>
> >So if a ST ship met a fleet of a hundred star destroyers, it would
> >simply sit there letting them fire until their weapons became exhausted.
> >They it would blow them away, one by one, until the remainder
> >surrendered. Then it would put their crews into a Federation penal
> >settlement, and they would be taught to become useful, productive
> >members of society.
>
> Your right, it would sit ther, for the three seconds it took to be
> destroyed.
>
>
>
Celes
At the request of a friend, I removed you (Ben Z. Tels) from my kill file,
and read your message.
>Ah, I see. I am in the killfile. Very nice. Especially coming from
someone
>who said everybody on this end is a coward because we don't post to Star
>wars NG's.
How does cutting one person (who critisized my spelling after I but in my
.sig file that I would ignore people who critisise my spelling) relate to
some testosterone induced person who is only looking out to vindicate his
own favorite show (not you nesasarily, just whoever did it). The only SW
group he/she sent it to was alt.binaries.starwars. ABOVE not wanting a
real debate (with the diehard SW fans who don't visit SW groups like I do)
he also wanted to try to block up a BINARIES group. Sadistic of him.
>How the hell do you know where I post to if I am in the killfile? And who
>are youu to call me a coward if you don't even acknowledge what I post
>(probably because you cannot cope with someone who does not immediatley
>accede your point and give up).
I relpied to someone else who quoted you, so I saw HIS quote of you (after
the >), NOT YOUR MESSAGE. (I even stated in my message that I had to reply
to someone else's message)
>Would somebody please make sure Celes gets this? I am in her killfile,
but
>I goddamn well have a right to be heard.
beinbg the only person in my killfilter (and given the anoying way Outlook
deals w/ people in kill filters) I removed you. I intend to make one last
post "The Falcon's Shields" in the SW vs ST debate, then I think I'm
through (at least until there's new info or I'm really board)
--
-Celes
ce...@deskmedia.com
Any/all replies flaming spelling and/or grammar
will be ignored because it is an obvious sign that the
flamer has no real ideas.
"If they don't understand, we will make them understand!"
-Ambassador Delenn-Babylon 5
"...Anything that gets in the way... Disappears."
-John Sheridan-Babylon 5
"We are everywhere... For your convenience."
-Bester-Babylon 5
>--
>Ben Z. Tels
>opti...@stack.nl
>
>"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle
>forever."
> -- Tsiolkovsky
> Celes wrote in article <5p7cfi$sgb$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
>>Being Ben's on my kill filter I had to reply to someone else's message.
>I
>>agree with Nick. We're ALL speculating on something some writers
dreamed
>>up. There isn't any hard facts to base any of this up. If that one
>>episode of TNG had never said lasers couldn't go through modren shields,
>or
>>there had never been an Suncrusher in a SW book, these discussion would
>be
>>vey diffrent.
>>
>>I'm assuming this was against some particualr point I made that you
>didn't
>>like. With 6-7 hours of SW film and new books only coming out evey few
>>months (and most of the books are about people, not tech) we have to
make
>>some leaps. Sorry if it was against ST, but you ST peopel have made
many
>>leaps yourself. Such as Turbolasers are lasers, or that Fed shields
stop
>>ALL lasers, or SW ships can't travel faster than light, or the Borg and
Q
>>would help in a fight, or ST would use Technobabble to find some new way
>of
>>detecting SW ships and would use some new technobabble weapons to
>completly
>>disable the SD (where as the Empire would immediatly surrender and join
>the
>>Federation).
>>
>>I won't make any leaps if you won't, but soon the discussions would
>become
>>more, "I think this simply because.." than they already are.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Celes
>>This is an old debate, and it boils down to if you believe Trek numbers
said on
>>screen and in the tech manual. If The tech manual is correct then the
E-D has a
>>phaser power of one GigaWatt, or 1000 million watts. In The Empire
Strikes Back an
>>Imperial Star Destroyer plinks off asteroids, vaporizing them with one
shot. It has
>>been estimated that it takes at the very least 4 Tera-Watts to do this,
which makes
>>turbolasers 4000 times as powerful as the E-D's phasers. In "The
Survivors" a 400
>>GW attack pokes a hole through the E-D's shields, at least according to
Worf. a
>>4000 GW turbolaser would probably ignore the E-D's shields as a train
would ignore
>>tissue paper.
I just want to add this to the debate. I also posted this as "The Falcon's
Shields"
If this the above info is correct (and numbers have a tendency to vary from
post to post) than the diffrence is even more signicicant then what I wrote
below, but I also point out some other things so it may be worth reading if
only (for ST people) to find errors (I'm not infallible) or (for SW people)
to find new info to rebuke the *stupid* ST claims (such as shields won't be
damaged by lasers, or SW ships don't travel faster than light.)
One last thing I didn't put in the "The Falcon's Shields" post:
Even (in the super unlikly) event that lasers (assuming SW weapons are
lasers) can't actually penitrate the shields, the shear output of the terra
or giga what weapons would create enought heat to kill everyone onboard.
(Remember ST people, you may have metaphasic shields, but some things
(lasers and lightning for example) are hotter than the sun.
And in undetectible hyperspace, the Empire could move in. blow up a fed
planet, then continue on.
Now for what I posted in "The Falcon's Shields":
This will (probably) be my last post in the ST vs. SW debate, (at least
until the new trilogy comes out). So I wanted to sum up a few things and
introduce one **NEW** piece of evidence.
The SW side of the debate has always suffered from two things... That
TurboLasers (at first glance) seem to be inferior to Trek Phasers, and that
Trek people fail to realize that lasers come in different strengths.
Apparently in one episode Picard said something to the effect of "Their
lasers won't even damage our navigational shields."
Our CD-lasers can't cut things... neither can laser sights on gun scopes,
but the ones used in the (real) Star Wars and SDI defense programs can. Do
you really think that that primitive culture Picard was talking about could
blow up a planet? Lasers can be extremely powerful.
According to the book “The Next Ten Thousand Years,” a laser with enough
power could cause a star to supernova.
There is no way the Enterprise’s shields could stop that, so it’s
reasonable to assume that some lasers of even less power can’t be stopped
by the Enterprise’s shields. So what Picard meant was, “This primitive
culture's lasers aren't very powerful so they can’t go through our shields,
just like the Enterprise-A’s phasers wouldn’t go through our shields.” SW
TurboLasers (being far more advanced than the culture Picard was talking
about) could damage any Fed ship. Next problem is which is more powerful,
Phasers or TurboLasers?
Before I get to that...
I was reading Stephen Hawking’s "A Brief History of Time" and I found
something interesting. In chapter 7 (page 108 in my book) he said (direct
quote except for what's in parentheses, in the book, the words in * are
italicized) "(Black holes) are *white hot* and are emitting energy at a
rate of about ten thousand megawatts (10 gigawatts)."
This got me thinking about how strong the Millennium Falcons Shields must
be. Let me elaborate.
In Star Wars: A New Hope, Han talks about making the Kessel run in under a
certain number of parsecs. Kessel is very close to a number of black
holes, so Han was saying that he cut it close to them. In one book (I
don't remember which one) he said something to the effect of "We were so
close to the black holes that it almost ripped the bottom off of our
ships." Implying that he was very near the Event Horizon of the Black
Holes.
In Kevin J. Anderson's Jedi Academy Trilogy, the rebels pilot a small
Imperial shuttle in a narrow passage through the black holes near Kessel.
They encounter a Imperial fleet that has been in the middle of the black
holes for DECADES!
The constant bombardment on these Star Destroyers must be incredible. That
they could Take 10 gigawatt energy for so long implies that either 1) They
have incredible shields 2) 10 Gigawatt energy isn't enough to damage
whatever metal their hull is made of, 3) All of the above.
Most quotes I've heard about the Enterprise's phasers range of megawatts.
The best that the Federation Flagship can dish out, a Star Destroyer could
take fro decades without ANY significant damage. A battle between the
Federation and a Super Star Destroyer (or even a smaller Star Destroyer)
would be like the Best of Both Worlds all over again.
Star Wars ships DO have shields (see final fight in ROJT for proof). A ST
person may bring up the point that, “SW shields must be inferior because
the Falcon landed on a SD (Star Destroyer).” Well, friend, remember in the
Alternate Universe on DS9 where the Defiant flew extremely close to the
Klingon battleship. It must have been inside the shields because when it
fired, it’s blast were not stopped by anything.
If a SD can easily take 10 gigawatt damage from close range, Star Wars
weapons must be *much* greater than 10 gigawatts. Defense usually evolves
with offense, so the Federations shields must be in the megawatt rage
(because they are damaged by weapons in the megawatt rage.)
Given the *huge* number of species in SW, they must have an incredibly huge
galaxy.
It would take thousands of ships to patrol that (I’ve hear of 40-50,000)
compared to ST’s few hundred.
If I may quote someone else’s numbers...
>consisted of 4 super star destroyers, 2 death stars (including the
>Tarkin),9000 (!) type 1 ISDs, and 6000 type 2 ISDs, there were about
>8000+ VSDs, and countless other ships (strike criusers, nebulon-bs,
>nova class destroyers, dreadnoughts...) I dont know about planetary
>shielding or starfleet marines, but an Isd carries a bout 10000
>Stormtroopers and a coupe of At-Ats.
That's 10,000 per ship verses the 5,000 on the E-D! Any (probably
megawatt) Federation ground based defenses would be useless against the
shields of the landing troops. And 9000 ISD’s versus a few hundred Fed
starships would be a one sided war.
SW hyperdrive is also much better than ST. Along with being completely
undetectable (and SW sensors are similar to ST sensors <see below>)
hyperdrive is also much faster. You saw in ESB how the rebels went *far*
outside the galaxy. I’ve heard that the Falcon can cross the galaxy in
about 2 days, compared to the Federations 70+ years.
Star Wars: Heir to the Empire gave a scanning range similar to the
Federations (but I don’t recall what it was).
The Empire has conquered the entire galaxy and therefore has a greater
Industrial base to call upon to make ships (compared to the Federations
77-150 planets <I’ve heard different numbers for the # of planets in the
Federation, but anyway it is definitely less than the Empire>).
Maybe some ST fan will call upon Q or the Borg or some system killing
monster to aid them and prove some kind of point. Well it won’t work. Q
has never helped the Federation (in battle) why would he help them now
(it’s not like he’s limited to this galaxy, he probably visits SW galaxy a
lot). The Borg wouldn’t side (are they helping the Fed against the
Dominion?) As for the on time Star/Planet/System killers. Well SW has
them too. The Death Star for one, then there’s the Eye of Palpatine <SP?>,
and the ever fun Suncrusher.
Is Geordi or Scotty or someone going to technobabble a solution? By saying
that your only admitting that ST can win by it’s tech alone.
Perhaps you would like to use “Why doesn’t SW use replicators or
transporters.” Well, for that matter, “Why didn’t the Fed invent Photon
torpedoes and clocking tech before the Romulans? Why doesn’t the Fed use
the Borg’s adaptive shield? Why does ST or SW use B5’s greater organic
hulls?
The answer is that occasionally species follow different (technological)
evolutionary paths.
For me the debate is over. I may read a few more posts and point out some
obvious errors (by either side). I like B5 and ST and SW, but the debate
is over (for me) SW has 1) Has FAR FAR greater weapons power 2) Greater
Shields 3) has much faster drives 4) Has a greater industrial base.
All the ST people can do is point out some small error that won’t really
change anything. Maybe, just maybe, it says that the Federation uses 20
gigawatt weapons. This would put it at (or even still below) the Empire’s
level, so the Empires number should still will. You can’t (with a straight
face) take away all these advantages.
Celes
Matt Maurano
Tis like this:
10e9 gigawatts of power x 40 turbolasers x 40 ships x 0 energy
actually penetrates the shield = 0 dammage
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 01:28:12 +0100, Graham Kennedy
<snip>
>Once and for all : Lasers can NOT even penetrate a starships
>navigational shields, let alone its main shields. I don't care how many
>words you put before or after the word laser - the presence of that word
>alone makes them about as effective as a pea-shooter.
<snip>
Kathleen Swab
Michael Gaskins wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:33:52 -0700, Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Celes wrote:
> >
> >> Which is better, TurboLasers, Phasers? We know that neither of them are
> >> lasers. (TurboLasers are PLASMA, (NOT LIGHT) based.)
> >> Both have adjustable power settings.
> >
> >This is an old debate, and it boils down to if you believe Trek numbers said on
> >screen and in the tech manual. If The tech manual is correct then the E-D has a
> >phaser power of one GigaWatt, or 1000 million watts. In The Empire Strikes Back an
> >Imperial Star Destroyer plinks off asteroids, vaporizing them with one shot. It has
> >been estimated that it takes at the very least 4 Tera-Watts to do this, which makes
> >turbolasers 4000 times as powerful as the E-D's phasers. In "The Survivors" a 400
> >GW attack pokes a hole through the E-D's shields, at least according to Worf. a
> >4000 GW turbolaser would probably ignore the E-D's shields as a train would ignore
> >thousands of years before SW, and the feds cannot cross thier galaxy at all.
> >
> > If you ignore every bit of on-screen power quotes and the ST tech manual, then
> >ST has a chance. Most ST fans do just that, as nobody wants to admit defeat.
> But on an Episode of DS9, the one where Dukat captured the Bird of
> Prey, Dukat's phasers took a few seconds to vaporize an asteriod, and
> the crew was sadly dissapointed. In other words, the phasers on that
> ship were VERY weak (they hit the BOP with their shields down and
> didn't do any damage). So, assuming that the phasers on other ships
> are more powerful (the Enterprise-D for example), then their phasers
> could also be able to instantly vaporize an asteroid. Also, the thing
> with crossing the galaxy, in the first Star Wars movie, A New Hope,
> Han tells Luke that the Millineium Fulcon (I know thats spelled wrong)
> can make .5 past light speed, and it's supposed to be one of, if not
> THE fastest starship is the Star Wars universe, and it's only going
> one and one half times the speed of light! At that rate it would take
> years to make it between star systems, and centuries to cross the
> galaxy. Warp 9 is nearly 1500 times that speed of light! Clearly the
> Federation/Star Trek ships are faster.
Yes, but what unit is it half of? If the Falcon can go .5 past light,
is that .5 of a million times? What units are we comparing?
Duane L Swab
Ed Tang
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 23:32:51 -0400, rco...@mulberry.com (Spike)
wrote:
>Who Cares about speed, a Galaxy Class Shop could easily over power a Star
>Destroyer with Phasers, Run Circles around them with Impulse (Star
>Distroyers have Thrusters...) and pound on them with Torpedoes.
>As for Death Star - remember Genesis? :)
Forget Galaxy Class... heck I'm willing to bet that a Daedalus class
starship---one of the very first Starfleet vessels to be commissioned
could take on a Star Destroyer!
Ed Tang
Beezel
On Wed, 02 Jul 1997 01:16:39 +0530, esp...@erols.com wrote:
>I seem to recall a ST:TOS episode in which Kirk says that his hand-held
>phaser could blow away the side of a building. It seems, therefore that
>not only torpedoes but also phasers could take out one of those globe
>things on top of an SD. However, those globe things are NOT shield
>generators, they are sensors, as it told on a highly techincal Star Wars
>tech page (I can't remember where :-)). If they were shield generators,
>why would they be placed in such a vulnerable spot?
Wy are ther plexyglass windows on the bridge? wy is the controle
room not bereyed deap inside the ship wher it wont get wasted by a
comicausey?
>On the DSII, no torpedo could navigate through the shafts like the
>Millenium Falcon and Wedge's X-Wing could; torpedoes seem to take the
>shortest course towards a target.
Pardon me but Photon torpeadoes are programibel and can controle
ther owen corse. They can trak gasses to (ST6) gasses from ohe say...
an EXAUST SHAFT?
>And of course they are less than 2m wide. In ST:VI, the torpedo Spock
>and McCoy were modifying was maybe 2 feet wide.
Maybe your not up on your Metric but 2 feet is not eaven the
equivelent of ONE meater.
>
>So maybe the Enterprise could destroy the DSI, but not the DSII.
Maybe both.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the inconvenence of reading through my posts!
However...
I will not respond to >un-frendly< comments regarding my
spelling.Dislexia does NOT equal stupidity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Z. Tels
Assuming that either phasers or turbolasers are lasers is nonsense,
illogical. You yourself have, however, provided ample proof that
turbolasers are in fact lasers, by telling us the are based on plasma.
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle
forever."
-- Tsiolkovsky
Celes wrote in article <5p4rbg$sm1$2...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
>They don't call them lasers, they call them TURBOLASERS. Phaser sounds a
>lot more like laser than turbolaser sounds like laser, but you don't see
SW
>people assuming that phasers are lasers.
Ben Z. Tels
Celes wrote in article <5p9lep$ouf$3...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
>One last thing I didn't put in the "The Falcon's Shields" post:
>Even (in the super unlikly) event that lasers (assuming SW weapons are
>lasers) can't actually penitrate the shields, the shear output of the
terra
>or giga what weapons would create enought heat to kill everyone onboard.
>(Remember ST people, you may have metaphasic shields, but some things
>(lasers and lightning for example) are hotter than the sun.
Do you know what the temperature of a laser beam is? Nothing. Laser beams
are light. Light has no mass, therefore no temperature. Light that strikes
an atom may be absorbed, its energy transformed into heat. Now, normally
the distinction is unimportant. But here, it is vital; you see, lasers that
don't strike Enterprise don't heat Enterprise either. No matter how many
mega-, giga-, tera- or even exawatts you pump into it.
>And in undetectible hyperspace, the Empire could move in. blow up a fed
>planet, then continue on.
We've been here before. Prove that Starfleet sensors can't detect vessels
in hyperspace.
>Apparently in one episode Picard said something to the effect of "Their
>lasers won't even damage our navigational shields."
That was LaForge, in "The Outrageous Okona". He said "Lasers...." by the
way, not "THEIR lasers...."
>Our CD-lasers can't cut things... neither can laser sights on gun scopes,
>but the ones used in the (real) Star Wars and SDI defense programs can.
Do
>you really think that that primitive culture Picard was talking about
could
>blow up a planet? Lasers can be extremely powerful.
No, they can't. Lasers can consist of packets of a large amount of energy,
but they are not powerful. And until thephotons are actually absorbed, they
aren't dangerous either.
>According to the book “The Next Ten Thousand Years,” a laser with enough
>power could cause a star to supernova.
We've been here before. Any laser can do that. It has nothing to do with
power, being able to hit the target is the issue.
>There is no way the Enterprise’s shields could stop that, so it’s
>reasonable to assume that some lasers of even less power can’t be stopped
>by the Enterprise’s shields. So what Picard meant was, “This primitive
If this energy were delivered quickly and in a form that affected the
shields, Enterprise would not be able to withstand it, no. From a laser,
however, Enterprise would not be harmed.
>culture's lasers aren't very powerful so they can’t go through our
shields,
>just like the Enterprise-A’s phasers wouldn’t go through our shields.”
SW
>TurboLasers (being far more advanced than the culture Picard was talking
>about) could damage any Fed ship. Next problem is which is more
powerful,
>Phasers or TurboLasers?
See above.
Uh-uh. If SD's went into a black hole, they wouldn't survive. If you're
going to use physics, use it. You can't just pick and choose.
AmishOutlaw
> >but the ones used in the (real) Star Wars and SDI defense programs can.
> Do
> >you really think that that primitive culture Picard was talking about
> could
> >blow up a planet? Lasers can be extremely powerful.
>
> but they are not powerful. And until thephotons are actually absorbed, they
> aren't dangerous either.
Look, lasers ARE powerful, and they ARE dangerous. Go buy a weak
neutron laser that high school labs use and shine it in your eyes. Your
eyes will be damaged. The U.S. military has lasers that can shoot down
ballistic missiles. These things are huge and are mounted in 747's.
--
AmishOutlaw
Remove "NOSPAM" from my address to E-Mail me!
quigly
>>
>
>Very poor targeting systems? Badly designed warships? Huh? Let's take a
>regular old TIE Fighter. No shields, weak hull, point 'n shoot lasers, but
>that didn't matter. You get the really really huge numbers of T/Fs they
>use and it won't make any difference. They build 'em simple so they can
>build LOTS and LOTS of them quickly and cheaply and overwhelm their
>opponent with numbers.
>
>
Humm, that seems to be a familiar plot to a certain war that took
place only a few years ago, like umm 1991 or so, superior numbers
don't mean a thing!!!!
Graham Kennedy
In article <01bc8581$221afa40$767a...@nickd.demon.co.uk>, Nick
Darlington <ne...@nickd.demon.co.uk> writes
>> In article <01bc84dd$afb5d720$767a...@nickd.demon.co.uk>, Nick
>> Darlington <ne...@nickd.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >[snipped]
(snipped)
>
>I'm not sure you got my point on this one.. I accept that an atmosphere of
>any type (including, no atmosphere) may be all within the Borg habitat, but
>I was trying to refer to sudden and excessive change in atmosphere, which
>unfortunately does nasty things to the body - even in an environment that
>the species could normally survive in (take a diver or mountain climber
>lowering or rising too rapidly, and you'll understand what I mean, then
>magnify that removing a planet from under someone's toes so that it no
>longer exists.. then make that same planet explode from beneath your toes..
>etc).
>
>That was my point anyway, and if the Borg can/could deal with this.. fair
>enough, but that was my argument to be tested, not whether the conditions
>of a vacuum would cause them any problem.
>
>> >
>> >Just curious :) I'd like to see how planet-2 coped and adapted after
>> >planet-1 bit the dust, literally.
>>
>> As for this, a Borg planet was recently blown away in Voyager. We shall
>> see how they react in later series, I hope. But bear in mind that Borg
>> planets probably cannot adapt the way their ships can.
>
>Did the Borg survive this (those on the planet)? If not, then that is
>precisely what I was trying to explain earlier.
>
>> >Regards (from a non-expert on the subject, I hasten to add),
>> >Nick
>[...]
>
>Regards (and the same still applies as above ;) ),
>Nick
>
I thought you where simply talking about the pressure problems. I doubt
that would kill them, but I'm not about to argue that individual Borg
can survive planetary destruction! I imagine an explosion of that
magnitude would kill the whole population. I haven't seen that Voyager
ep myself, but I'm led to believe all the Borg died.
The Death Stars/other planet destroyers problem would be getting to the
planets in the first place, then escaping afterwards.
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
In article <33B6D3...@autobahn.mb.ca>, Andrew Krywonizka
<gryphon*@autobahn.mb.ca> writes
>Chris Trimmer wrote:
>
>> Not to mention that a Star Destroyer carries 40 Turbolasers compared
>> to maybe 8 phaser banks.
>
>Actually, and ISD carries 60 turbolasers, as well as 60 ion cannons and
>10 tractor beams. An SSD carries 500 turbolasers (in various configs),
>plus 250 ion cannons, 250 concussion missile tubes and 40 tractor beams.
>If Star Trek fans can't see that this ship would kick *any* ST ship's
>ass (including the Borg), then that's pretty sad.
>
>Andrew K.
That's rather like saying a 15'th century sailing ship might carry 80
cannon, 200 musketeers on the decks, 20 grappling hooks... so of course
it would beat a battleship that only has a poxy nine 18 inch guns and 36
cruise missiles!
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
In article <5p9cc3$d...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>, InterWeb <krb-
br...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>
> Graham Kennedy wrote in article ...
>>>
>of
>>>Star Wars weapons if the Star Wars weapons had a head start of "a long
>time
>>>ago", which for all we know could be a million years head start
>>
>>Or could be a five year head start. I say it because the Empire uses
>>laser weapons, has very poor targeting systems, and badly designed
>>warships. I always thought the Empire was older than the Federation, and
>>has a larger population. But their technology seems stagnant -
>>presumably because a repressive regime tends to stifle creativity. It
>>wouldn't surprise me to find out that the Imperial fleet ships are
>>centuries old hand-me-downs that nobody remembers how to build any more,
>>constantly being re-fitted with lower and lower quality weapons as
>>Imperial technology sinks further into the mire. Pure speculation of
>>course, but it would explain why their primitive technology exists
>>alongside such large warships.
>>
>
>regular old TIE Fighter. No shields, weak hull, point 'n shoot lasers, but
>that didn't matter. You get the really really huge numbers of T/Fs they
>use and it won't make any difference. They build 'em simple so they can
>build LOTS and LOTS of them quickly and cheaply and overwhelm their
>opponent with numbers.
>
>
Rather like the Russian design philosophy in the cold war. Or the Iraqi
design philosophy in the gulf war. Or the Argentine philosophy in the
Flaklands war. Or....
Get the picture?
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
In article <01bc8582$fd19cb20$767a...@nickd.demon.co.uk>, Nick
Darlington <ne...@nickd.demon.co.uk> writes
>Graham Kennedy <gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>> In article <33B6F7...@widomaker.com>, "Cmdr. Teihl Armstree"
>> <arms...@widomaker.com> writes
>> >G
>[...]
>> >
>> >
>>
>> No matter how powerful the laser, it would not have the effect shown. A
>> laser is a very focused light beam, it would probably burn a hole
>> through the planet - an entry hole a few feet wide, and exit hole a few
>> miles or tens of miles wide. You would be able to fan it back and forth
>> and chop the planet up, but you would not be able to blow a planet away
>> as shown.
>
>cue ball or gassy like a planet.....?
>
>High powered laser/heat, penetrating through to a large, and also pocketed,
>gas core may well cause a planetary explosion.. at least, I think it would
>anyway, not that I've been able to experiment on this. ;)
Planets do NOT have gaseous cores. There are few things more dense than
the core of a planet (neutronium, not much else). Even gas giants have
very dense cores.
(snipped)
--
Graham Kennedy
quigly
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:48:53 +0100, Graham Kennedy
<gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <01bc84dd$02b0a0a0$767a...@nickd.demon.co.uk>, Nick
>Darlington <ne...@nickd.demon.co.uk> writes
>>[Cut down cos this is starting to get messy]
>>Graham Kennedy <gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>><3pN+pCAk...@adeadend.demon.co.uk>...
>>> In article <33B60...@shore.intercom.net>, "Jon Chapin (Assassin)"
>>> <cha...@shore.intercom.net> writes
>>> >OK, my second post :-)
I think that the fighters "flying" through the shields on the Death
Star has something to with how tight the shields "web" is. This is
evidenced by the briefing that was given to Luke and the other fighter
pilots in SW before the attack on Death Star #1.
quigly
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:03:15 -0400, "Cmdr. Teihl Armstree"
<arms...@widomaker.com> wrote:
I agree, You put more energy behind anything, and you can get results.
Real life example, Gulf War-So damn insane made extremely thick
bunkers thinking that they were invincable, solution-bigger bomb
(5000lbs). More weight=more energy!!
Celes
I said I was through, but iwant to clear up some last points.
>Do you know what the temperature of a laser beam is? Nothing. Laser beams
>are light. Light has no mass, therefore no temperature. Light that
strikes
>an atom may be absorbed, its energy transformed into heat. Now, normally
>the distinction is unimportant. But here, it is vital; you see, lasers
that
>don't strike Enterprise don't heat Enterprise either. No matter how many
>mega-, giga-, tera- or even exawatts you pump into it.
Just curious, how exactly do phasers work than (on the shields)? Perhaps
lasers would work the same way.
>>And in undetectible hyperspace, the Empire could move in. blow up a fed
>>planet, then continue on.
>We've been here before. Prove that Starfleet sensors can't detect vessels
>in hyperspace.
I've heard that the range of St and Sw sensors is similar, so they're at
about the same level, and don't you think that SW people have been tring
for THOUSANDS of years to find out how to scan in hyperspace.
>That was LaForge, in "The Outrageous Okona". He said "Lasers...." by the
>way, not "THEIR lasers...."
I now have the EXACT quote of when Picard said it (and he said THIER
lasers), so what is the exact quote for LaForge?
>Uh-uh. If SD's went into a black hole, they wouldn't survive. If you're
>going to use physics, use it. You can't just pick and choose.
Here's the real reason I decided to reply, to clear up this point.
Some of the ships did enter the black holes (plural) and were destroyed,
but the ones I'm talking about just flew very close, (a few meters from the
event horizen, I think) If your wondering how they did that 1) the force,
2) the stars were on the ship :-)
The Maw instalation (where the SD were for decades) is like the eye of the
huricane. It is surounded by black holes, but is not actually inside one.
like this
. 0\0
. 000/00
. 0 x 00
. 00000
where each slash is the path that the shuttle and the SD flew through
{maybe in the book they used two diffrent paths, but this is just an
illistration}, the x is the Maw instalation, and each 0 is a black hole (I
don't recall how many black holes ther were, I just put in enough to
surrond the x and make the path {hey there is only so much you can do with
ascii graphics!})
_@_._
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:44:30 -0700, Simon Juncal
<s^jun...@erols.com> wrote:
>Ben Z. Tels wrote:
>>
>> The Borg move freely through vacuum, without the aid of a spacesuit (see
>> "First Contact").
>
>AH YES! and OH so realistic that is, they have organic tissue that
>is __VITAL___ to their survival (if you don't believe me consider the
>ending in which a corosive gas kills them by eating away there fleshy
>bits) do you have ANY idea what happens to flesh or any organic compound
>after a few seconds in cold hard vacume?
You apparently do not. You're parroting myths from bad sf. And
consider that being in bare sunlight at the intensity of our sun
at earth's orbit would hardly be cold, it would be broiling hot.
> disruption at cell level,
Not from the vacuum.
>bursting of blood (or any other liquid) vessels,
also not true, or at least nothing close to fatal: the
subcutaneous edema of vacuum exposure would be fairly minor, as
I've seen it described. You ever see 2001 A Space Odyssey? They
were at great pains to be accurate in that movie, with Stanley
Kubrick teamed with Arthur C. Clarke. Bowman, you'll recall, was
trapped outside the ship with no helmet. During his exposure to
vacuum he had to deal with oxygen deprivation, yes, and would
have faced problems with fluid boiling off his eyes also: you'd
probably want goggles to really pull that stunt. But mere
exposure of bare skin to vacuum does not kill as you claim.
> eventualy solidly
>freezing (= killing) of every organic cell...
Yes the low temperatures are quite deadly - given time one could
expect to suffer freezing of skin (or burning if exposed to
direct sunlight). Of course you seem not to consider that as we
know, in the ST fiction Borgs can be individually shielded.
Likely they maintain a thin layer of pressurized air next to the
skin with a minimal shield, and vary the infra-red reflectance of
the shield to retain the bodies own heat (and dump the excess).
Quite cozy, and the shield could block out harmful amounts of
direct sunlight also. Getting rid of excess heat in space is
often the greater problem, since cubic unit of volume, our bodies
put out more heat then our sun.
Even outside of the fictional context of ST, the issues you raise
are hardly of much merit.
<snip>
Graham Kennedy
#In article <5p9dp1$d...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>, InterWeb <krb-
>>Interestingly enough, the nav deflector has a higher power rating than
>>any other ships component except the warp drive. On the other hand, Star
>>wars ships don't seem to bother with nav deflectors - even though by
>>your own logic this is a huge problem for them.
>
>Oh yeah, I really need a navigational deflector to sweep away those scary
>atoms. There are soooo many of them in space, I'm sooo scared of them! It
>isn't a problem for them mostly because 1) at slow speeds they just need to
>fire a blast of turbolaser at something large to vaporize it goodbye and
>for small atoms as you said ST ships needed to be swept away who cares?
>The majority of atoms a ship would encounter are harmless hydrogen. and 2)
>at high speeds they enter hyperspace which is a whole different kind of
>space so no need to vaporize things there.
Do you know what the atoms in space are? Hydrogen and helium, for the
most part. Helium atoms are a nuclei of are 2 Protons + 2 neutrons, with
2 electrons going around them. Fast moving helium nuclei are alpha
radiation. Fast moving electrons are beta radiation. In interplanetary
space there is about one atom per cubic centimetre. At 1/4 lightspeed,
an object the size of your body can expect to hit about 1.5 exp 14 of
these atoms per second. For interstellar space you can cut that down an
order of magnitude or so.
If you aren't scared of stuff like that - well, I've got a plot of land
near Chernobyl I'd like to sell you...
>
>>
>>>
>>>why because ST writers wrote it that way.... making this whole
>>>speudo-scientific arguement baseless and laughable.
>>>
>>
>>For star wars, anyway. Lucas really needs to put more thought into the
>>design of his warships.
>
>And then Star Trek ships are so weak they (in your own words) need a
>navigational delfector to "shunt away atoms and mirco-meteors". Even
>today's space shuttle gets hit with micro-meteors on its missions, and it
>seems to do just fine.
>
>
You really should look up some basic science before you make such
statements.
Of course, the shuttle DOES get hit by micrometeors. In orbit, they have
a maximum relative speed of about 40,000 metres per second. A starship
going at 1/4 lightspeed is travelling 1,875 times this speed. The impact
energy is thus 3,515,625 times greater.
Let's calculate this. The numbers will be rough, but they'll give us an
idea of the energies we're talking about.
A 1 gram meteorite moving at 1/4 lightspeed. Energy = 0.5 x M x V^2
= .5 x 0.001 x 75000000^2 = 2,812,500,000,000 Joules.
Thats about equal to 1000 tons of TNT.
I'll say that again : ONE THOUSAND TONS OF TNT PER 1 GRAM IMPACT!!!
Now, does my meaning begin to look a little clearer? Impacting
micrometeors at relativistic speeds is no inconsequential thing. It is,
in fact, one of the most significant design considerations of any high
speed spacecraft.
Of course, Imperial Star Destroyers may just be pitifully slow by Star
Trek standards - as slow as the space shuttle, as you suggested. That
would certainly avoid the problem for them, and explain why they don't
need nav deflectors. It would also make them sitting ducks for any
starship.
Nuff said.
--
Graham Kennedy
Ben Z. Tels
>Even (in the super unlikly) event that lasers (assuming SW weapons are
>lasers) can't actually penitrate the shields, the shear output of the
terra
>or giga what weapons would create enought heat to kill everyone onboard.
>(Remember ST people, you may have metaphasic shields, but some things
>(lasers and lightning for example) are hotter than the sun.
Do you know what the temperature of a laser beam is? Nothing. Laser beams
are light. Light has no mass, therefore no temperature. Light that strikes
an atom may be absorbed, its energy transformed into heat. Now, normally
the distinction is unimportant. But here, it is vital; you see, lasers that
don't strike Enterprise don't heat Enterprise either. No matter how many
mega-, giga-, tera- or even exawatts you pump into it.
>And in undetectible hyperspace, the Empire could move in. blow up a fed
>planet, then continue on.
We've been here before. Prove that Starfleet sensors can't detect vessels
in hyperspace.
>Apparently in one episode Picard said something to the effect of "Their
>lasers won't even damage our navigational shields."
That was LaForge, in "The Outrageous Okona". He said "Lasers...." by the
way, not "THEIR lasers...."
>Our CD-lasers can't cut things... neither can laser sights on gun scopes,
>but the ones used in the (real) Star Wars and SDI defense programs can.
Do
>you really think that that primitive culture Picard was talking about
could
>blow up a planet? Lasers can be extremely powerful.
No, they can't. Lasers can consist of packets of a large amount of energy,
but they are not powerful. And until thephotons are actually absorbed, they
aren't dangerous either.
>According to the book “The Next Ten Thousand Years,” a laser with enough
>power could cause a star to supernova.
We've been here before. Any laser can do that. It has nothing to do with
power, being able to hit the target is the issue.
>There is no way the Enterprise’s shields could stop that, so it’s
>reasonable to assume that some lasers of even less power can’t be stopped
>by the Enterprise’s shields. So what Picard meant was, “This primitive
If this energy were delivered quickly and in a form that affected the
shields, Enterprise would not be able to withstand it, no. From a laser,
however, Enterprise would not be harmed.
>culture's lasers aren't very powerful so they can’t go through our
shields,
>just like the Enterprise-A’s phasers wouldn’t go through our shields.”
SW
>TurboLasers (being far more advanced than the culture Picard was talking
>about) could damage any Fed ship. Next problem is which is more
powerful,
>Phasers or TurboLasers?
See above.
Uh-uh. If SD's went into a black hole, they wouldn't survive. If you're
going to use physics, use it. You can't just pick and choose.
Ben Z. Tels
Jason A. A.
>In article <33B6D3...@autobahn.mb.ca>, Andrew Krywonizka
><gryphon*@autobahn.mb.ca> writes
>>Chris Trimmer wrote:
>>
>>> Not to mention that a Star Destroyer carries 40 Turbolasers compared
>>> to maybe 8 phaser banks.
>>
>>Actually, and ISD carries 60 turbolasers, as well as 60 ion cannons and
>>10 tractor beams. An SSD carries 500 turbolasers (in various configs),
>>plus 250 ion cannons, 250 concussion missile tubes and 40 tractor beams.
>>If Star Trek fans can't see that this ship would kick *any* ST ship's
>>ass (including the Borg), then that's pretty sad.
They would not even be able to penetrate the Borgs shields.
>>Andrew K.
>
>That's rather like saying a 15'th century sailing ship might carry 80
>cannon, 200 musketeers on the decks, 20 grappling hooks... so of course
>it would beat a battleship that only has a poxy nine 18 inch guns and 36
>cruise missiles!
>
LOL.
____________________
Jason Andrew Atkinson
=====================
Ash nazg durbatuluk,
ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul!
\\\\\\\ LOTR- JRRT.
+++++++++++++++++++++
For e-mail, please remove ANTISPAM
Jason A. A.
On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 17:36:03 GMT, qui...@usa.net (quigly) wrote:
>>>
>>
>>Very poor targeting systems? Badly designed warships? Huh? Let's take a
>>regular old TIE Fighter. No shields, weak hull, point 'n shoot lasers, but
>>that didn't matter. You get the really really huge numbers of T/Fs they
>>use and it won't make any difference. They build 'em simple so they can
>>build LOTS and LOTS of them quickly and cheaply and overwhelm their
>>opponent with numbers.
And the Fed ship would set its phasors on wide beam and take out
entire squadrons in a single shot.
Jason A. A.
On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 20:57:42 GMT, "Nick Darlington"
<ne...@nickd.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Assuming that the ST crew could also close down the shield generators, and
>that the torpedo is less than 2m wide (the size of the port hole on the
>non-beaten up version of the DS that was the only weakness) and is not
>effected less, or be less accurate, than the (whatever-it-was) that was
>fired at the port hole, in case it exploded against the side harmlessly
>like the earlier rebel shots did.
>
Which DS are we talking about. The first one did not seem to have
much in the way of shield, and yes, PTs are less the 2m wide. The
second, yes they could easily destroy the shield generator (one
quantum torpedo would easily do the building), afterwhich they have a
number of options, such as beaming tricobalt into the reacter.